Subject: RE: [Sip] Updated connected-identity draft

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:35:51 +0000

Denis,
 
The disadvantage with changing the To header field URI in the INVITE
response is that authentication using the Identity header cannot be
achieved. It may be possible to rely on other means to ensure the
authenticity of this information (e.g., SIPS + transitive trust +use of TLS
on the last hop too). It depends whether there is sufficient interest from
the community in this.
 
John

  _____  

From: Alexeitsev, D [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 06 March 2006 13:57
To: Elwell, John
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: AW: [Sip] Updated connected-identity draft

Hello Jonh
 
Referring to the open issue about the updated To: header in the final INVITE
response:
 
Would it not be possible to have a general solution that would allow both
the change of the To: header URI in the final INVITE response, if the COLP
information is available at that time, and the midcall change using the
UPDATE method?
 
The tests we made with several SIP hard and soft phones show, that the
current implementations would accept the changed To: header URI in the final
INVITE response without any session influence. The changed To: header URI
information would currently not be presented to the user by the UACs, but
this is a user interface issue without protocol impact.
 
In the subsequent requests the UACs would still use the original To: header
URI, so this could be mentioned in the draft to increase the
interoperability with current implementations.
 
Greetings,
Denis Alexeistev
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Elwell, John [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Gesendet: Montag, 6. März 2006 11:50
An: [email-masked]
Betreff: [Sip] Updated connected-identity draft

draft-elwell-sip-connected-identity is now available: 
 
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-elwell-sip-connected-identity-01.
txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-elwell-sip-connected-identity-01.t
xt 

Compared with the 00 version, this has changed considerably and is intended
to reflect decisions made in Vancouver. It exploits the ability to change
the From URI during a dialog, so that requests in the reverse direction can
place the source URI in the From header field and the Identity header can be
used to provide authentication, rather having to introduce new headers.
Comments would be appreciated. I would like to get this adopted as a SIP WG
item in Dallas.

John 

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: "Ilan Avner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 22:06:17 +0200

Hi all,
I have two questions regarding the identity draft:
 
1.Does the new draft address a feature implemented on the PSTN world called COLR (Connected number presentation restriction), this feature is about sending the connected number as a restricted number.
the solution for sending restricted numbers as the calling number (in the first INVITE) is to use the p-asserted header, what about the connected number?
2.In case the called number had changed after sending 180, as I understand the UAS should send an UPDATE request with the new number in the from header.
what about the 200 O.K for the INVITE, should the To header also change to reflect the new called number or should be the same as the To header sent in the 180?
 
Thanks.
 
Ilan.

________________________________

מאת: Elwell, John [mailto:[email-masked]]
נשלח: ב 06/03/2006 18:35
אל: Alexeitsev, D
עותק לידיעה: [email-masked]
נושא: RE: [Sip] Updated connected-identity draft

Denis,
 
The disadvantage with changing the To header field URI in the INVITE response is that authentication using the Identity header cannot be achieved. It may be possible to rely on other means to ensure the authenticity of this information (e.g., SIPS + transitive trust +use of TLS on the last hop too). It depends whether there is sufficient interest from the community in this.
 
John

________________________________

	Hello Jonh
	 
	Referring to the open issue about the updated To: header in the final INVITE response:
	 
	Would it not be possible to have a general solution that would allow both the change of the To: header URI in the final INVITE response, if the COLP information is available at that time, and the midcall change using the UPDATE method?
	 
	The tests we made with several SIP hard and soft phones show, that the current implementations would accept the changed To: header URI in the final INVITE response without any session influence. The changed To: header URI information would currently not be presented to the user by the UACs, but this is a user interface issue without protocol impact.
	 
	In the subsequent requests the UACs would still use the original To: header URI, so this could be mentioned in the draft to increase the interoperability with current implementations.
	 
	Greetings,
	Denis Alexeistev
	-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
	Von: Elwell, John [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Gesendet: Montag, 6. M?rz 2006 11:50
	An: [email-masked]
	Betreff: [Sip] Updated connected-identity draft

		draft-elwell-sip-connected-identity is now available: 
		http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-elwell-sip-connected-identity-01.txt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-elwell-sip-connected-identity-01.txt>  

		Compared with the 00 version, this has changed considerably and is intended to reflect decisions made in Vancouver. It exploits the ability to change the From URI during a dialog, so that requests in the reverse direction can place the source URI in the From header field and the Identity header can be used to provide authentication, rather having to introduce new headers. Comments would be appreciated. I would like to get this adopted as a SIP WG item in Dallas.

		John