Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..

Hopefully but I still haven¹t seen any response to my concern about
normative dependencies on STIR.

If we can define the object/headers first then I don¹t have a issue.

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
Chairman of the Board SIP Forum
www.shockey.us
www.sipforum.org
richard<at>shockey.us
Skype-Linkedin-Facebook rshockey101
PSTN +1 703-593-2683

From:  Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Date:  Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 12:26 PM
To:  Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
Cc:  Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>, <cnit@ietf.org>
Subject:  Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..

Are we planning to submit a charter in the next couple of days, and then see
if we can get a slot at the next IETF?

Brian
> On May 28, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> wrote:
> 
> 
> A fair argument but I don¹t want to spend 5 years waiting for a series of
> normative dependencies on the trust model before actually understanding what
> headers can/should be used here.
> 
> 
> Its much too difficult to get things done in the IETF as it is.   I¹d much
> prefer building from success starting with the definition of the data object
> then ..then folding that into a trust model and frankly given what we have
> seen in STIR I¹m not sure your argument holds up. Again the MARTINI model.
> 
> Didn¹t you recently  say something about ³perfection is the enemy of the good²
> :-) 
> 
> 
> 
> From:  Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
> Date:  Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 10:11 PM
> To:  <cnit@ietf.org>
> Subject:  Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..
> 
> On May 25, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> wrote:
>> 
>> From:  Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
>> Date:  Friday, May 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM
>> Attached is what I have at this point. Really, the only thing I'm struggling
>> with is the milestones as I don't think we can request publication of the
>> data object and headers without having defined the trust model.
>> 
>> 
>> RS> Mary I¹m not sure about that statement. I can certainly anticipate
>> several deployment models where the trust mechanism (aka signing) does not
>> need to be formally integrated in the solution especially those where the
>> exchange of data is more bi-lateral and the trust mechanism is at lower
>> layers of the stack than the signaling. My initial concern  is what is the
>> header and what is the data object(s) carried in the header. How the CNIT
>> data is created should not be our concern.
> 
> I do not buy it. If there are private agreements between service providers,
> they have private agreements. They can do whatever they want.
> 
> Last I looked, this is the Internet Engineering Task Force. Assume untrusted
> transport across the wide open Internet, and trust no endpoint that cannot
> cryptographically prove who they are. If it happens two service providers
> exchange CNIT data over a single, yellow cable, then it is a benefit that no
> state-sponsored security service can listen in on the cable.
> 
> I do not want to take three years to build a protocol and two more years after
> that for products to be available just to have a system that only works in
> walled gardens. I do not want to be the person that has to explain to the
> media why Calling Name Delivery is just as broken as it always was and it will
> be another five years before the world sees a real solution.
> 
> Let us get this right the first time.
> [snip]
> _______________________________________________ cnit mailing list
> cnit@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cnit
> _______________________________________________
> cnit mailing list
> cnit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cnit