[Bug 24909] Anonymity API (e.g. suppressing caller-ID)

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24909





--- Comment #22 from Mikhail Zabaluev <mikhail.zabaluev at nokia.com>  2010-03-31 01:32:20 PST ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> > • Will wonders if this interface might be overly tinfoil hatty and
> >   support features no-one will ever use, and maybe we should just have a
> >   HideCallerID: b property?
> 
> That depends upon the SIP folks; exactly how much control do you want to
> provide to a UI when allowing modification of SIP anonymity modes?

Umm, all of the flags, to just map it straight to the privacy header? :)
I tried to boil it down to some generally meaningful categories, but if such
complexity is deemed not desirable/useful, some of them could be collapsed,
with some consensus on what each broad privacy category should mean for SIP.

> I'm not sure how much of the original rtcom privacy spec had actually been used
> by CMs,

So far only telepathy-ring (the GSM CM) in Maemo implements it.

> as well as how much of it had actually been used by clients/UIs.

Lassi and Pekka, could you comment?

> > • AnonymizedDisplayName: this isn't a display name, it's an Identifier.
> 
> Hm, my understanding was that it was literally the name that was displayed to
> the remote client.  In the case of GSM, this would be a phone number (an
> identifier); in the case of SIP, this would be "Anonymous"
> <sip:anonymous at anonymous.invalid>.

I meant it to be the URI only, that is "sip:anonymous at anonymous.invalid" or
whatever scrambling the CM would use. The display name is not important and set
to "Anonymous" by convention; any client-specific variation here may breach
anonymity.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.