Subject: [SIP] Privacy Draft - Next step

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:14:36 -0500

Greetings

Mark Watson posted his updated comments on the privacy draft a couple of
weeks ago. Since then, there was some good discussion which seems to
have settled down now. With the I-D submission deadline approaching, I'd
like to get some closure on this in the (perhaps naive) hope that we can
get this WG item finished.

Mark's overall comment on the privacy draft was that we should make
Remote-Party-ID more general so that it can be used for any type of
identity information. One of the key points here is, that the types of
identity information should be extensible and hence can be used for new
types of identity not defined in the draft. I think this is a good idea
and I've seen no disagreement on this so we should accept that as our
goal.

Mark also suggested five specific enhancements (see
http://lists.bell-labs.com/pipermail/sip/2001q1/005470.html for
details):
1) Requlatory requirements
2) Types of Party
3) Types of Identity
4) Handling of Privacy Requirements
5) Location Information

I've seen no disagreement on 1-4, so we should incorporate these.

Location Information generated a lot of discussion though and seemed to
be controversial. Based on the comments it seems unlikely that we will
be able to solve this one any time soon, however, it's also not clear
that it needs to be part of the privacy draft. First of all, location
information is not a requirement for all applications of
Remote-Party-ID, e.g. non primary-line telephony or in general just
non-telephony, which however may still want to use Remote-Party-ID.
Secondly, since we will be generalizing the Remote-Party-ID and make it
extensible, a URL-based solution could still make use of it for Location
Information, but again, I don't see this as an integral part of this
extension. Thus, I propose that the specifics of Location Information
will not be part of the privacy draft.

Assuming nobody objects, I will work with Mark on updating the draft
accordingly, so please speak up now if you disagree with any of this.

Thanks

       Flemming

--
Flemming Andreasen
Cisco Systems

_______________________________________________
This list is for continuing development of the SIP protocol.
The sip-implementer's list is the place to discuss implementation,
and to receive advice on understanding existing sip.
To subscribe to it, send mail to [email-masked] with
"subscribe sip-implementors" in the body.