Flemming Andreasen (fandreas@cisco.com) 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: Other changes: 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