40 likes | 154 Views
SIP Extensions for Caller Identity and Privacy <draft-ietf-sip-privacy-03.txt>. Flemming Andreasen (fandreas@cisco.com)
E N D
SIP Extensions for Caller Identity and Privacy<draft-ietf-sip-privacy-03.txt> Flemming Andreasen (fandreas@cisco.com) W. Marshall, K. K. Ramakrishnan, E. Miller, G. Russell, B. Beser, M. Mannette, K. Steinbrenner, D. Oran, F. Andreasen, J. Pickens, P. Lalwaney, J. Fellows, D. Evans, K. Kelly, M. Watson IETF - December 2001
I-D Evolution • Privacy-01 draft presented at 50th IETF (Minn.) • Privacy-02 draft issued in May and thought to be ready for WG Last Call • However several concerns raised off-line • Scope and Proxy-Require in particular • Subsequent discussions resulted in refining the scope for the privacy draft: • Only address network authenticated Remote-Party-ID. • Remote-Party-ID is inserted by trusted entity • Assume trusted entity has somehow determined the relevant identity information. • Another draft will deal with the authentication problem
Overview of Changes • Implications: • Untrusted UA does not include Remote-Party-ID header • Trusted Entity (UA or proxy) inserts it • New RPID-Privacy header for UA to control privacy of Remote-Party-ID header inserted by trusted entity. • “Anonymous” From header field defaults to full privacy as well • Removed “alias” and “return” rpi-id-type from Remote-Party-ID • To avoid Proxy-Require: option to encrypt Remote-Party-ID headers within trust boundary (but other issues here) • Other changes: • Remote-Party-ID and Anonymity now allowed in other messages than INVITE and INVITE-responses. • INVITE, OPTIONS, extension methods, (REGISTER)
Overview of Changes, cont • Other changes, cont. • Parts of draft rewritten to better explain trusted versus untrusted entity behavior (proxy and UA). • Nature Of Party (Appendix A) updated per list discussion • Added “not-applicable”, “cellular-ordinary”, and “cellular-roaming” and mapping from information digits (II). • Next Steps • Please review and comment • WG Last Call