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