> On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 16:28 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > As I noted, I'm perfectly happy to let aggregators do it by contract;
> > the hammer that will fall on them is big enough that I don't think they
> > need to validate a second (or third) time.
>
> well verification is a particularly hard thing to do correctly. For
Only in the core. It's trivial at the edge. IP routing people know
this instinctively, and it translates.
> example, e164.org will call the phone number then place the route. This
> is not (or so it seems) done at intervals later on, which means you can
> get a number, verify it, release it to someone else, get a new one, and
> so on. You would end up with a bunch of numbers you only owned long
> enough to get verified, and now belong to others, allowing you to hijack
> their calls.
<sigh>
Please stop with the strawmen, would you?
> Ok, so that is a problem with e164.org, but taking the verification
> thing further, how exactly do you propose to do this for all the
> customers that you have? If you place a phone call, it only proves that
> they (or a disgruntled employee) has access to that number at that
> particular point in time, it does not verify anything for the future.
<sigh> again. Go back and actually read what I wrote... cause it's
sure not what you're responding to.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates
'87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
+1 727 647 1274
Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Joseph Stalin)
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment