-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 377
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
MSC3086: Asserted identity on VoIP calls #3086
base: old_master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ | |||
# MSC3086: Asserted Identity for VoIP Calls |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a nit but "Asserted" sounds too strong to me. Before I opened the doc I would think that it had been asserted via strong cryptography or similar, and there is a chance that someone seeing the events might think the same. Would something like "Proxied Identity", "Delegated Identity" or even "Suggested Identity" make more sens? I see that in the SIP case this talks about authenticated identities making the call (although I guess in that case the authentication isn't e2e).
Co-authored-by: Kevin Cox <kevincox@kevincox.ca>
"call_id": "thE1dofth1scallisthis5trIng", | ||
"party_id": "abcdef", | ||
"asserted_identity": { | ||
"id": "@alice:rabbithole.example", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think using user_id
here to be more explicit could be a bit better
Rendered