Rejecting Anonymous Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
RFC 5079

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Sam Hartman) Yes

(Cullen Jennings) (was Discuss, No Record, Discuss, Yes) Yes

(Jon Peterson) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

Comment (2007-07-10)
No email
send info
Should the interoperability with the PSTN be described in more detail or made part of the requirements for PSTN/SIP gateways?

I note that the reference to RFC 3325 is on the edge of being a normative reference, because that's where the 'id' privacy type is defined.

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2007-07-13)
No email
send info
Section 3., paragraph 1:
>    A server (generally acting on behalf of the called party, though this
>    need not be the case) MAY generate a 433 (Anonymity Disallowed)
>    response when it receives an anonymous request, and the server
>    refuses to fulfill the request because the requestor is anonymous.

  There should be a statement somewhere in this section that a 443
  SHOULD NOT (or MUST NOT?) be generated in response to other requests.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(David Ward) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection