[Serusers] How to change display name

[Evan Borgström]

	Just to throw another of my $0.02 in here I'd like to point out that
the RFC for PAI states (section 9.1):

   A P-Asserted-Identity header field value MUST consist of exactly one
   name-addr or addr-spec.  There may be one or two P-Asserted-Identity
   values.  If there is one value, it MUST be a sip, sips, or tel URI.
   If there are two values, one value MUST be a sip or sips URI and the
   other MUST be a tel URI.

	So to correctly identify yourself to the PSTN you need to send two PAI
headers, one sip & one tel. For example:

   P-Asserted-Identity: "Cullen Jennings" <sip:fluffy at cisco.com>
   P-Asserted-Identity: tel:+14085264000

	This is hard to accomplish with the current stable version of SER, the
version in CVS is another story. And while I encourage forward movement
in the protocol the RPID accomplishes transporting of Caller-ID
information to calls destined for the PSTN much better IMHO as not all
PSTN gateways support the PAI headers and the RPID doesn't need to a
"trusted" resource, simply how the call should be identified.

	Finally, just because something's depreciated doesn't mean it doesn't
do a good job at what it was intended for, look at how many sites still
run the 1.3 branch of Apache and they're at 2.2 now. I know it's apples
& oranges, but I think I've conveyed my side of the argument...

-Evan

Evan Borgström wrote:
> 	I believe that the consultant is referring to the RFC 3325;
> P-Asserted-Identity & Privacy headers. The RPID draft was depreciated
> many moons ago but it's still much more widely supported than any other
> method of transporting identity and privacy information.
> 
> 	We transport both RPID & PAI as we have one interconnect that only
> supports the PAI while 90% of the others only support RPID (with the
> remaining few supporting both).
> 
> -Evan
> 
> Steve Blair wrote:
>> I was just told by a consultant that RPID has been deprecated by the
>> IETF. I do not have any more information on this move but if true it
>> suggests that this is the wrong approach. Does anyone have any more
>> information about this? Does anyone have any additional suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks,Steve
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers