1 / 5

Relationships Between Different Types of Identifiers

This draft explores the relationships between various identifiers used in different communication protocols, such as SMTP, SIP, and XMPP. It discusses the challenges and provides recommendations for identifier creation and management.

minhg
Download Presentation

Relationships Between Different Types of Identifiers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Recommended Relationships between Different Types of Identifiersdraft-schulzrinne-sipping-id-relationships-00 Henning Schulzrinne (Columbia U.) Eunsoo Shim (Panasonic) eunsoo@research.panasonic.com hgs@cs.columbia.edu IETF63 - SIPPING

  2. Overview • No public directory deployed or likely • Often, only partial information available • e.g., auto-addressbook in mail user agents • Set of user@domain-style identifiers • SMTP (RFC 2821) • SIP • XMPP • (also NAI: RADIUS and DIAMETER) IETF63 - SIPPING

  3. Motivation • User experience: Users think of addresses like alice@example.com, not sip:alice@example.com or mailto:alice@example.com • Authentication: single sign-on identifier • also allows easy SIP account creation • create sip:alice@example.com; password mailed to alice@example.com • Spam prevention: use earlier email exchange as white list for SIP • “I have sent email to bob@example.com, so I’m accepting IM from sip:bob@example.com” • Problem: No clear guidance on identifier creation and relationships IETF63 - SIPPING

  4. Core recommendations • User MAY choose same user name across URIs within same domain • or stronger: Provider SHOULD assign same user part across URI schemes • Providers SHOULD NOT assign the same user id in different URI schemes to different people • SIP URIs SHOULD have a working email equivalent • motivation less clear (not necessary for voicemail) • useful for initial sign-up in some scenarios IETF63 - SIPPING

  5. Open issues • Mapping of tel URIs to email and SIP URIs – primarily issue of separators • ignore all separators (all equivalent) OR • specific recommendation of usage • Is this useful enough as a BCP or Informational? IETF63 - SIPPING

More Related