August 2005IETF63 - SIPPING1 Recommended Relationships between Different Types of Identifiers draft-schulzrinne-sipping-id-relationships-00 Henning Schulzrinne (Columbia U.) Eunsoo Shim (Panasonic)

August 2005IETF63 - SIPPING2 Overview No public directory deployed or likely Often, only partial information available –e.g., auto-addressbook in mail user agents Set of identifiers –SMTP (RFC 2821) –SIP –XMPP –(also NAI: RADIUS and DIAMETER)

August 2005IETF63 - SIPPING3 Motivation User experience: Users think of addresses like not or Authentication: single sign-on identifier –also allows easy SIP account creation –create password mailed to Spam prevention: use earlier exchange as white list for SIP –“I have sent to so I’m accepting IM from Problem: No clear guidance on identifier creation and relationships

August 2005IETF63 - SIPPING4 Core recommendations User MAY choose same user name across URIs within same domain –or stronger: Provider SHOULD assign same user part across URI schemes Providers SHOULD NOT assign the same user id in different URI schemes to different people SIP URIs SHOULD have a working equivalent –motivation less clear (not necessary for voic ) –useful for initial sign-up in some scenarios

August 2005IETF63 - SIPPING5 Open issues Mapping of tel URIs to and SIP URIs – primarily issue of separators –ignore all separators (all equivalent) OR –specific recommendation of usage Is this useful enough as a BCP or Informational?