Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..

[Richard Shockey <[e-mail]>]

On 6/11/15, 1:08 PM, "Henning Schulzrinne" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>The topic of caller name delivery came up (along with STIR and other
>topics) at a recent event:
>
>http://www.aging.senate.gov/hearings/ringing-off-the-hook_examining-the-pr
>oliferation-of-unwanted-calls
>
>CNIT is making a cameo appearance as well. I would summarize the event as
>"bipartisan frustration with the status quo".


Yep Š   


http://thehill.com/policy/technology/244566-senators-pile-on-the-robocall-b
ashing





>
>________________________________
>From: cnit [[e-mail]] on behalf of Richard Shockey
>[[e-mail]]
>Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:46 AM
>To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..
>
>
>Thank you that is very helpful. I¹m assuming its network delivered based
>on information derived from the calling party billing data.
>
>My other running assumption has been that some form Advanced Calling Name
>Delivery is a precondition for advanced realtime communications service
>delivery.. Aka ubiquitous video calling.   Would that be a reasonable
>presumption?
>
>From: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 9:02 AM
>To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>Subject: Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..
>
>Richard,
>
>For a number of years, there has been an optional caller name dispay
>feature attached to some of the telephone services in France, but indeed
>nothing like the standalone CNAM service concept that underpins the
>discussions on this list.
>
>Regards,
>
>Philippe Fouquart
>Orange Labs Networks
>[phone]
>
>
>-------- Message d'origine --------
>De : Richard Shockey
>Date :11/06/2015 05:21 (GMT+01:00)
>À : Brian Rosen , Henning Schulzrinne
>Cc : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>Objet : Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..
>
>
>
>Here is what I want to know now.
>
>Before we start to process this concept I want to know how relevant the
>existing CNAM service is deployed outside North America.
>
>I¹m told by reliable sources that the CNAM service is not deployed
>anywhere among the major telecom markets in Europe or Asia. Not Japan
>China or South Korea UK Italy France and in fact it might actually be
>illegal under the strict privacy regulations in Germany.
>
>I don¹t know.
>
>That said our friends at Apple seem to understand there is a problem
>here. I have tried to engage the most senior management at Google about
>who would be responsible for defining how the VoLTE CUA could actually
>display an advanced call display data and frankly no one knows.
>
>http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-update-in-ios9-suggests-caller-id-201
>5-6
>
>There is a realistic question if this is simply a North American specific
>problem why is this  a IETF issue. You might ask the same question of
>MODERN but I frankly don¹t want to go there.
>
>
>
>
>From: Richard Shockey <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM
>To: Brian Rosen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>Cc: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>Subject: 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 [phone]
>
>
>From: Brian Rosen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 12:26 PM
>To: Richard Shockey <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>Cc: Eric Burger 
><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>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
><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 
><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 10:11 PM
>To: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>Subject: Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..
>
>On May 25, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Richard Shockey
><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>From: Mary Barnes 
><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>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
>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/c
>nit
>_______________________________________________
>cnit mailing list
>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cnit
>
>_______________________________________________ cnit mailing list
>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cnit
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>_______________________________________________
>
>Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
>recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
>electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme
>ou falsifie. Merci.
>
>This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
>information that may be protected by law;
>they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
>delete this message and its attachments.
>As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
>been modified, changed or falsified.
>Thank you.
>
>
>_______________________________________________ cnit mailing list
>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cnit