On 2007-12-04 08:05, Miguel Garcia wrote:
...
Comments:
Section 4 (but this also affects other sections):
... URI-list servers can use URIs
tagged with the 'anonymize' attribute for routing SIP requests, but
MUST convert them to an anonymized URI (such as
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) in recipient-history lists.
I think that to be watertight, the anonymous URI should be
well-defined, i.e. not 'such as' but simply 'MUST be
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
Essentially, RFC 3261 allows to have any .invalid TLD as an anonymous
URI, so, I don't think we need to have further restrictions on that.
However, by leaving it open you make the job of a person writing code
to interpret this URI very much harder. If you specify the exact string,
it becomes trivial to check for it. I think it should be specified.
Also, but less important: There's a booby-trap in blind-copied email,
namely sending a reply-all without noticing that you've been
blind-copied.
Would it be useful to add a 'blind-copy' attribute for Bcc recipients,
so that they can easily know about it?
I appreciate the comment. However, we never had such a requirement,
perhaps because the idea is to mimic e-mail.
...including its problems ;-)
There is one issue with your suggestion. If I understand correctly, the
'blind-copy' attribute would only be present in the URI of the recipient
that receives the blind copy. This basically requires that the URI-list
server creates a different URI-list body (recipient-history list) per
recipient. With the current draft, all the recipients receive the same
recipient-history list.
Understood. I wouldn't insist on this.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
