20 Jan
2008
20 Jan
'08
2:20 p.m.
Hi, "Remote-Party-ID" is a draft ("draft-ietf-sip-privacy-04") [1]
expired in
2002 while "P-Asserted-Identity" is a official RFC (3325) [2].
I'd like to know why OpenSer manages RPID in some functions ("auth" module)
instead of PAI. I assume that some gateways just implement RPID and so, but
can't understand why PAI is ignored (the use of PAI is extended in gateways).
As a curiosity, both draft and RFC have really **common** parts, as
chapter "Introduction" (4 in draft, 3 in RFC):
"3/4 Introduction
Various providers offering a telephony service over IP networks have
selected SIP as a call establishment protocol. Their environments
require a way for trusted network elements operated by the service
providers (for example SIP proxy servers) to communicate the identity
of the subscribers to such a service, yet also need to withhold this
information from entities that are not trusted when necessary. Such
networks typically assume some level of transitive trust amongst
providers and the devices they operate.
These networks need to support certain traditional telephony services
and meet basic regulatory and public safety requirements. These
include Calling Identity Delivery services, Calling Identity Delivery
Blocking, and the ability to trace the originator of a call ... "
So my question is again:why OpenSer supports RPID related functions and not
PAI functions?
Thanks for any explanation.
[1] RPID: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-privacy-04
[2] PAI: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3325.html
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
20 Jan
20 Jan
7:11 p.m.
RPID died and was replaced by PAI, but not until after thousands of
implementations of UA made RPID common. Eventually it may go away....
On Jan 20, 2008, at 3:20 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net> wrote:
Hi, "Remote-Party-ID" is a draft
("draft-ietf-sip-privacy-04") [1]
expired in
2002 while "P-Asserted-Identity" is a official RFC (3325) [2].
I'd like to know why OpenSer manages RPID in some functions ("auth"
module)
instead of PAI. I assume that some gateways just implement RPID and
so, but
can't understand why PAI is ignored (the use of PAI is extended in
gateways).
As a curiosity, both draft and RFC have really **common** parts, as
chapter "Introduction" (4 in draft, 3 in RFC):
"3/4 Introduction
Various providers offering a telephony service over IP networks have
selected SIP as a call establishment protocol. Their environments
require a way for trusted network elements operated by the service
providers (for example SIP proxy servers) to communicate the
identity
of the subscribers to such a service, yet also need to withhold this
information from entities that are not trusted when necessary. Such
networks typically assume some level of transitive trust amongst
providers and the devices they operate.
These networks need to support certain traditional telephony
services
and meet basic regulatory and public safety requirements. These
include Calling Identity Delivery services, Calling Identity
Delivery
Blocking, and the ability to trace the originator of a call ... "
So my question is again:why OpenSer supports RPID related functions
and not
PAI functions?
Thanks for any explanation.
[1] RPID: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-privacy-04
[2] PAI: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3325.html
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.openser.org
http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
21 Jan
21 Jan
7:46 p.m.
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Hi, "Remote-Party-ID" is a draft
("draft-ietf-sip-privacy-04") [1] expired in
2002 while "P-Asserted-Identity" is a official RFC (3325) [2].
I'd like to know why OpenSer manages RPID in some functions ("auth" module)
instead of PAI. I assume that some gateways just implement RPID and so, but
can't understand why PAI is ignored (the use of PAI is extended in gateways).
RPID was never an RFC, but it was implemented by Cisco and all of the
Cisco stuff out there support it. PAI is supported only by newer Cisco
stuff. Thus, most gateways support RPID too to be compatible with Cisco.
When ser implemented RPID support, there was not PAI defined. Thus, RPID
support was first and it was implemented into auth module - and more or
less hardcoded.
Later, ser/openser become more flexible (pseudo variables, AVPs ...) and
you could load AVPs from DB and add a new header with the AVP. Thus, for
adding a header with values read from database there was no reason
anymore to implement a certain add_pai_hf function as you could do
everything with append_hf and AVPs.
regards
klaus
As a curiosity, both draft and RFC have really **common** parts, as
chapter "Introduction" (4 in draft, 3 in RFC):
"3/4 Introduction
Various providers offering a telephony service over IP networks have
selected SIP as a call establishment protocol. Their environments
require a way for trusted network elements operated by the service
providers (for example SIP proxy servers) to communicate the identity
of the subscribers to such a service, yet also need to withhold this
information from entities that are not trusted when necessary. Such
networks typically assume some level of transitive trust amongst
providers and the devices they operate.
These networks need to support certain traditional telephony services
and meet basic regulatory and public safety requirements. These
include Calling Identity Delivery services, Calling Identity Delivery
Blocking, and the ability to trace the originator of a call ... "
So my question is again:why OpenSer supports RPID related functions and not
PAI functions?
Thanks for any explanation.
[1] RPID: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-privacy-04
[2] PAI: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3325.html
8:32 p.m.
El Lunes, 21 de Enero de 2008, Klaus Darilion escribió:
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Hi, "Remote-Party-ID" is a draft
("draft-ietf-sip-privacy-04") [1]
expired in 2002 while "P-Asserted-Identity" is a official RFC (3325) [2].
I'd like to know why OpenSer manages RPID in some functions ("auth"
module) instead of PAI. I assume that some gateways just implement RPID
and so, but can't understand why PAI is ignored (the use of PAI is
extended in gateways).
RPID was never an RFC, but it was implemented by Cisco and all of the
Cisco stuff out there support it. PAI is supported only by newer Cisco stuff.
I can confirm that Nortel CS2000 allows both RPID and PAI. ;)
Later, ser/openser become more flexible (pseudo
variables, AVPs ...) and
you could load AVPs from DB and add a new header with the AVP. Thus, for
adding a header with values read from database there was no reason
anymore to implement a certain add_pai_hf function as you could do
everything with append_hf and AVPs.
Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
5964
days inactive
5965
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alan Crosswell -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Klaus Darilion