Subject: AW: AW: AW: [Sipping-tispan] TISPAN requirements, first requiemen ts

From: "Jesske, R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:33:24 +0200

> > 
> > I think it might be worth considering adding role parameters to 
> > P-Asserted-ID.
> 
> That is OK with me and solves most of the problems.
> 

Paul,
I have to revice my proposal. 
I thought that is the solution to bind it to the P-Asserted-Id. But in the case were we have a anonymous communication restricted by the network. We usually have no Calling Party number. And therefore also no P-Asserted-Identity.
So we cannot bind this to the P-Asserted-Identity.

Perhaps we can bind it to the privacy header?

Or any other?

Best Regards.

Roalnd

_______________________________________________
Sipping-tispan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-tispan

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:43:38 +0300

Hi Roland:

If you don't have a P-Asserted-Identity in the signalling, is because 
the trust relationship has been broken at some point, in which case, you 
shouldn't trust also the role parameter independently of the header 
where you put it.

The nice property of adding a role parameter to the P-Asserted-Identity 
header is that you get the trust for free, which is the expected 
behaviour for this service.

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
sip:[email-masked]
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:31:18 -0400

I agree with Miguel.

I understand that there are cases where the system doesn't know who the 
caller is, but in that case I have already suggested that you insert a 
P-Asserted-Identity with a special value, such as perhaps just an 
identity of the originating network that is making assertions about the 
role of the caller. Once you have that header you can add role 
parameters to it.

In the case where the identity has to be made up in this way you can 
also, if you wish, insert a Privacy header that causes this made-up 
identity to be restricted.

	Paul

Miguel Garcia wrote:
>> I have to revice my proposal. I thought that is the solution to bind 
>> it to the P-Asserted-Id. But in the case were we have a anonymous 
>> communication restricted by the network. We usually have no Calling 
>> Party number. And therefore also no P-Asserted-Identity.