Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..

Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> Fri, 12 June 2015 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
X-Original-To: cnit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cnit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9BF1A1B48 for <cnit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qgP1FB_RoISw for <cnit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (qproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [173.254.64.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E8D7C1A1B34 for <cnit@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 32644 invoked by uid 0); 12 Jun 2015 16:10:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) (10.0.90.83) by qproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 2015 16:10:08 -0000
Received: from box462.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.62]) by cmgw2 with id fTiN1q0071MNPNq01TiR0V; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:42:33 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=cooIzTIi c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:117 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=j1VUBDpLDLYA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=MKtGQD3n3ToA:10 a=1oJP67jkp3AA:10 a=ZZnuYtJkoWoA:10 a=8WrITzYgnNwA:10 a=-h4zUWlAkX4A:10 a=XAFQembCKUMA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=5ghfHOtlzQCDLEinPWYA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-transfer-encoding:Content-type:Mime-version:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:To:From:Subject:Date; bh=aBJhJKbZqrzA8EJEMUKXoRyfIv7x+POxI0jCqQJ6G+Q=; b=Ul36EwG38aOz8Hgp01He4jH0EyZL6WPNvCFrVuzinHReBFC/A7vrVZsG1TA+phBKJ0uRVk8cd/9xT/WIVZ9ceoCsWbP9qg9uwQRSSmhgy/3Ue3GwApoD5c2/4ElWdEAA;
Received: from [108.56.131.149] (port=50625 helo=[192.168.1.11]) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1Z3RDR-0007ZD-Ey; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:49:57 -0600
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.1.150515
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:49:52 -0400
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Henning Schulzrinne <Henning.Schulzrinne@fcc.gov>, "philippe.fouquart@orange.com" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com>, "cnit@ietf.org" <cnit@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <D1A0761F.26EE1%richard@shockey.us>
Thread-Topic: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..
References: <D19F23AD.26CEA%richard@shockey.us> <E42CCDDA6722744CB241677169E8365603614617@MISOUT7MSGUSRDB.ITServices.sbc.com> <9588_1434045613_5579CCAD_9588_574_1_fki5dyxdmgyv92b6hugpfuoy.1434045608655@email.android.com> <E6A16181E5FD2F46B962315BB05962D07D354C94@fcc.gov> <9384_1434103912_557AB068_9384_7221_1_B5939C6860701C49AA39C5DA5189448B14C216E0@OPEXCLILM42.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D1A05A04.26E84%richard@shockey.us> <E6A16181E5FD2F46B962315BB05962D07D355543@fcc.gov> <557AE9E4.5030205@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <557AE9E4.5030205@cs.tcd.ie>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 108.56.131.149 authed with richard+shockey.us}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cnit/IT9hOhipTAo3KP-ZwDXGqW4yeoI>
Subject: Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..
X-BeenThere: cnit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Calling Name Identity Trust discussion list <cnit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cnit>, <mailto:cnit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cnit/>
List-Post: <mailto:cnit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cnit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cnit>, <mailto:cnit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:10:11 -0000

Henning is right. No one is forcing anything. Existing anonymous calling
protections still apply.


Again my point is that is a great many cases Interconnected SIP between NA
carriers are covered by other security mechanisms.

Right now your Facetime session is totally in the clear. My concern is we
end up going down the rat hole of trying to create perfect end to end
security nothing will get done.



On 6/12/15, 10:17 AM, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

>
>
>On 12/06/15 15:13, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>> In almost all cases of interest, the calling party *wants* to
>> disclose accurate information to the called party, so the privacy
>> issues don't seem to arise. They would only arise if there was forced
>> disclosure; I don't think anybody is proposing that.
>
>Privacy issues could also arise if a middlebox could now see
>sensitive information that it previously could not see. I think
>that is independent of whether disclosure is desired by either
>of the endpoints.
>
>S.
>
>_______________________________________________
>cnit mailing list
>cnit@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cnit