Discussion:
[Sip-implementors] Anonymous URI in SIP PAI header
Rajesh
2014-07-02 16:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

May i know whether it is valid to add Anonymous URI (
anonymous at anonymous.invalid) in the PAI (P-Asserted-Identity) header filed.
Thanks

Regards
Rajesh
Rajesh
2014-07-02 16:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Abhishek. Could you please send me any references on this from RFCs
and i would really appreciate if you can mention any scenario where we can
see PAI header with anonymous URI

Regards
Rajesh
It is valid
Post by Rajesh
Hi,
May i know whether it is valid to add Anonymous URI (
anonymous at anonymous.invalid) in the PAI (P-Asserted-Identity) header filed.
Thanks
Regards
Rajesh
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
Joel Gerber
2014-07-02 16:32:23 UTC
Permalink
RFC 3325/3324. I don't think this scenario is directly mentioned, because it's silly, but it's valid according to the ABNF.

Joel Gerber
Network Specialist
Network Operations
Eastlink
E: Joel.Gerber at corp.eastlink.ca T: 519.786.1241

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-implementors-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Rajesh
Sent: July-02-14 12:30 PM
To: abhishek verma; sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Anonymous URI in SIP PAI header

Thanks Abhishek. Could you please send me any references on this from RFCs and i would really appreciate if you can mention any scenario where we can see PAI header with anonymous URI

Regards
Rajesh
It is valid
Post by Rajesh
Hi,
May i know whether it is valid to add Anonymous URI (
anonymous at anonymous.invalid) in the PAI (P-Asserted-Identity) header filed.
Thanks
Regards
Rajesh
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
Joel Gerber
2014-07-02 16:30:24 UTC
Permalink
It's valid, but more than slightly silly. Why even send a PAID if it's not going to have valid information?

For PPID, it still would be valid, but pretty much guaranteed that it will be ignored.

Joel Gerber
Network Specialist
Network Operations
Eastlink
E: Joel.Gerber at corp.eastlink.ca T: 519.786.1241

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-implementors-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Rajesh
Sent: July-02-14 12:17 PM
To: sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Anonymous URI in SIP PAI header

Hi,

May i know whether it is valid to add Anonymous URI (
anonymous at anonymous.invalid) in the PAI (P-Asserted-Identity) header filed.
Thanks

Regards
Rajesh
Paul Kyzivat
2014-07-02 17:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Is is silly and inappropriate to assert the validity of
anonymous at anonymous.invalid, because there is no such domain. Hence
nobody is in a position to make such an assertion.

But it could be appropriate to assert sip:anonymous at somedomain. This
would presumably mean: this is from *some* valid user of somedomain, but
which one is being withheld. This has more utility in domains with many
users than in those with just a few.

This has even been discussed in the ongoing work in the ietf STIR wg.

Thanks,
Paul
Post by Joel Gerber
It's valid, but more than slightly silly. Why even send a PAID if it's not going to have valid information?
For PPID, it still would be valid, but pretty much guaranteed that it will be ignored.
Joel Gerber
Network Specialist
Network Operations
Eastlink
E: Joel.Gerber at corp.eastlink.ca T: 519.786.1241
-----Original Message-----
From: sip-implementors-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Rajesh
Sent: July-02-14 12:17 PM
To: sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Anonymous URI in SIP PAI header
Hi,
May i know whether it is valid to add Anonymous URI (
anonymous at anonymous.invalid) in the PAI (P-Asserted-Identity) header filed.
Thanks
Regards
Rajesh
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
swaminathan.seetharaman
2014-07-03 03:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Hi All,

Yes, it is not usual to receive a PAI with Anonymous URI. The PAI would typically not be included instead.

However, a From header can contain an "anonymous" or "unavailable" user identity. Pl. refer to 3GPP TS 23.003 (Section 13.6 in v8.17.0) as well as 3GPP TS 29.163 (Table 3/Table 12 in v8.20.0).

Regards,

Swami.

-----Original Message-----
From: sip-implementors-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:40 PM
To: sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Anonymous URI in SIP PAI header

Is is silly and inappropriate to assert the validity of anonymous at anonymous.invalid, because there is no such domain. Hence nobody is in a position to make such an assertion.

But it could be appropriate to assert sip:anonymous at somedomain. This would presumably mean: this is from *some* valid user of somedomain, but which one is being withheld. This has more utility in domains with many users than in those with just a few.

This has even been discussed in the ongoing work in the ietf STIR wg.

Thanks,
Paul
Post by Joel Gerber
It's valid, but more than slightly silly. Why even send a PAID if it's not going to have valid information?
For PPID, it still would be valid, but pretty much guaranteed that it will be ignored.
Joel Gerber
Network Specialist
Network Operations
Eastlink
E: Joel.Gerber at corp.eastlink.ca T: 519.786.1241
-----Original Message-----
From: sip-implementors-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of
Rajesh
Sent: July-02-14 12:17 PM
To: sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Anonymous URI in SIP PAI header
Hi,
May i know whether it is valid to add Anonymous URI (
anonymous at anonymous.invalid) in the PAI (P-Asserted-Identity) header filed.
Thanks
Regards
Rajesh
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.

WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

www.wipro.com
Rajesh
2014-07-03 09:49:44 UTC
Permalink
Thanks all for your help on this

Regards
Rajesh Kappoor
Post by swaminathan.seetharaman
Hi All,
Yes, it is not usual to receive a PAI with Anonymous URI. The PAI would
typically not be included instead.
However, a From header can contain an "anonymous" or "unavailable" user
identity. Pl. refer to 3GPP TS 23.003 (Section 13.6 in v8.17.0) as well as
3GPP TS 29.163 (Table 3/Table 12 in v8.20.0).
Regards,
Swami.
-----Original Message-----
sip-implementors-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 10:40 PM
To: sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Anonymous URI in SIP PAI header
Is is silly and inappropriate to assert the validity of
anonymous at anonymous.invalid, because there is no such domain. Hence
nobody is in a position to make such an assertion.
But it could be appropriate to assert sip:anonymous at somedomain. This
would presumably mean: this is from *some* valid user of somedomain, but
which one is being withheld. This has more utility in domains with many
users than in those with just a few.
This has even been discussed in the ongoing work in the ietf STIR wg.
Thanks,
Paul
Post by Joel Gerber
It's valid, but more than slightly silly. Why even send a PAID if it's
not going to have valid information?
Post by Joel Gerber
For PPID, it still would be valid, but pretty much guaranteed that it
will be ignored.
Post by Joel Gerber
Joel Gerber
Network Specialist
Network Operations
Eastlink
E: Joel.Gerber at corp.eastlink.ca T: 519.786.1241
-----Original Message-----
From: sip-implementors-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of
Rajesh
Sent: July-02-14 12:17 PM
To: sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Anonymous URI in SIP PAI header
Hi,
May i know whether it is valid to add Anonymous URI (
anonymous at anonymous.invalid) in the PAI (P-Asserted-Identity) header
filed.
Post by Joel Gerber
Thanks
Regards
Rajesh
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments
to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and
may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are
not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy
this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of
this message and any attachments.
WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient
should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses.
The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this email.
www.wipro.com
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors at lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
Brett Tate
2014-07-02 17:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rajesh
May i know whether it is valid to add
Anonymous URI (anonymous at anonymous.invalid)
in the PAI (P-Asserted-Identity) header filed.
It likely depends upon what you mean by valid.

Since anonymous at anonymous.invalid isn't a real identity (i.e. "invalid"
reserved for special meaning), my understanding is that it would only be
added because of bad configuration, bugs, or non trusted device.

See RFC 3325 and RFC 3323 concerning adding P-Asserted-Identity, privacy,
and non trusted devices. The only time anonymous at anonymous.invalid would
be within P-Asserted-Identity while within a "trusted" network is if
someone added or approved it as the real identity within the "trusted"
network.
Loading...