[Freeswitch-users] enable passthrough of "Privacy: id" header in sip

[SP]

Oh you want current. :)

No I got nothing.

On Tuesday, August 17, 2010, Michael Jerris <mike at jerris.com> wrote:
> Expiration 5/31/01
> An actual RFC as opposed to a 10 year old now expired draft?
> Mike
> On Aug 17, 2010, at 2:25 PM, SP wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-privacy-00
>
> 5.2 Anonymity Header Field Definition
> blah blah blah..."If privacy is requested, it MUST be one or more of
> "full", "uri",
>    "name", or "ipaddr"."
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 17:52, Michael Jerris <mike at jerris.com> wrote:
> is there a specification which defines this "uri" value?
>
> Mike
>
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
>
> FS doesn't recognize "uri" value of privacy tag, the recognized values are
> "yes", "full", "name" and "number". Any other value is interpreted as "off".
> See sofia.c, lines around 6660.
>
> On Thursday 22 July 2010, mike.burlingame wrote:
> Ok so I am still kinda lost in trying to figure this one out here are the
> two headers that I am looking at - basically someone sends an invite to FS
> that ask's FS via RPID to hide the caller id info from downstream gateways
> so the A-LEG is the invite going to FS - FS takes the invite and spits out
> the B-LEG to go downstream HOWEVER FS does not copy the parameters
> correctly as you can see in the initial invite A-LEG requested in the RPID
> to be privacy=uri however on the B-LEG side FS set the RPID to privacy=off
> in turn telling gateways downstream to display the CID info.
>
> A-LEG
> Remote-Party-ID: <sip:NUMBER at DOMAIN>;party=calling;screen=yes;privacy=uri
>
> B-LEG
> Remote-Party-ID: "NAME"
> <sip:NUMBER at IPADDRESS>;party=calling;screen=yes;privacy=off
>
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 09:35 AM, Michael Collins <msc at freeswitch.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:18 PM, mike.burlingame <

-- 
Shannon