Brian Cruickshank (cruicb@nortelnetworks.com)
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 15:29:55 -0500
Caller-id is sent even if the number is unlisted.
Brian Cruickshank
Nortel Networks
-----Original Message-----
From: Byung Hee Choung [mailto:Byung.Choung@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 11:55 AM
To: Graham Klyne
Cc: vpim
Subject: RE: [VPIM] sender and unlisted phone numbers.
Actually, I don't know what happens to Caller-id when the number is
unlisted.
Does anyone in the telephony world know what gets sent on caller-id when the
phone number is unlisted?
In theory, I agree that 'listing' and sender anonymity are two distinct
issues. Still I'm interested in knowing what the 'expected' behavior (by
the consumers) when a user buys unlisted phone numbers. Do they give up
that anonymity when using VPIM enabled systems?
Byung Choung
-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Klyne [mailto:gk-lists@dial.pipex.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 1:32 AM
To: Byung Hee Choung
Cc: vpim@lists.neystadt.org
Subject: Re: [VPIM] sender and unlisted phone numbers.
At 03:32 PM 12/1/00 -0800, Byung Hee Choung wrote:
>Reading through draft-ietf-vpim-vpimv2r2-01.txt I had a question.
>
>In the sender field, I think VPIM format expects that it will contain the
>phone number of the sending user. How have systems dealt with sending
>phone numbers of users who have 'unlisted' phone numbers? Is it expected
>that a 'pseudo' phone number will be used, in which case a reply back to
>the send will not be supported?
How does this differ from a caller-ID normally being sent for a phone call,
even if the caller is unlisted? I think "listing" and sender anonymity are
two distinct issues.
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Content Technologies Ltd.
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Dec 06 2000 - 00:12:47 IST