Re: [dispatch] Charter Proposal: Verification Involving PSTNReachability (VIPR)

["Mohammad Al-Taraireh (maltarai)" <[e-mail]>]

It is really the key parameters about the pstn call that both sides can
agree on. Of course the start, and stop time of the call assuming NTP is
being used with some delta error margin should be acceptable. The caller
ID should not be a mandatory key since it might not be present in all
cases, however, the called number must be required, and must be the same
on both VCRs. 

Mo A 

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Roni Even
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:35 PM
To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Cc: 'DISPATCH list'
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Charter Proposal: Verification Involving
PSTNReachability (VIPR)

Cullen,
I am not talking about the vipr drafts but about the charter, I thought
we are discussion a charter and not a solution.
"One initial validation protocol will be based on a domain being able to
prove it received a particular phone call over the PSTN based on both
sides knowing the start and stop times of that call"
What do you mean by "received a particular phone call" - my
understanding from reading the sentence is that it is based on the
caller ID; the start and stop time may not be unique, so my reading is
that the charter means caller-id and start and stop time.

Roni Even

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:57 PM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: DISPATCH list
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] Charter Proposal: Verification Involving 
> PSTNReachability (VIPR)
> 
> 
> On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Roni Even wrote:
> 
> > Hi Cullen,
> > I think that other standard body should be consulted like ITU.
> 
> What would you like to ask the ITU about?
> 
> > The reason is
> > that I see that one assumption is to use the PSTN numbering plan
> using also
> > the caller id.
> > My experience is that this is not information that can be reliable 
> > when going between PSTN service providers and it gets worse
> on
> > international calls.
> 
> Yes, caller-id is often missing and is trival to spoof. That is why 
> none of vipr drafts uses calling name or number. I'm not really sure 
> what you are getting at here.
> 
> 
> > Roni Even
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 7:55 PM
> > > To: DISPATCH list
> > > Subject: [dispatch] Charter Proposal: Verification Involving PSTN 
> > > Reachability (VIPR)
> > >
> > >
> > > I've been talking to a lot of people about the VIPR drafts  - here
> is a
> > > first cut of a proposal for a WG that could do this. I'm sure the 
> > > charter proposal needs a bunch of work but I wanted to get the 
> > > discussion rolling on the list.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Cullen
> > >
> > > (PS - this is sent in my individual contributor role. Take all my
> posts
> > > about VIPR to be in my individual role not my co-chair role)
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ViPR Charter Proposal (Version 0)
> > >
> > > WG Name:  Verification Involving PSTN Reachability (VIPR)
> > >
> > > There are two globally deployed address spaces for communications
> that
> > > more than a billion people use on a daily basis. They are phone
> numbers
> > > and DNS rooted address such as web servers and email addresses. 
> > > The federation design of SIP is primarily designed for email style

> > > addresses yet a large percentage of SIP deployments primarily use
> phone
> > > numbers for identifying users. The goal of this working group is 
> > > to allows people to use SIP to federate over the the internet 
> > > while
> still
> > > using phone numbers to identify the person they wish to 
> > > communicate with.
> > >
> > > The VIPR WG will address this problem by developing a peer to peer

> > > based approach to finding SIP domains that claim to be responsible
> for
> > > a given phone number and the WG will design validation protocols 
> > > to ensure a reasonable likelihood that a given domain actually is 
> > > responsible for the phone number. One initial validation protocol
> will
> > > be based on a domain being able to prove it received a particular
> phone
> > > call over the PSTN based on both sides knowing the start and stop
> times
> > > of that call. Other validation schemes, such as examining
> fingerprints
> > > or watermarking of PSTN media, to show that a domain received a 
> > > particular PSTN phone call may be considered by the working group.
> To
> > > help mitigate SPAM over SIP issues, the WG will define an token
> based
> > > authorization scheme so that domain using SIP to federate can
> choose to
> > > check that incoming SIP calls are from a domain that successfully 
> > > validated a phone number.
> > >
> > > The problem statement and some possible starting points for
> solutions
> > > are further desired in the following internet drafts which shall
> form
> > > the bases of the WG documents:
> > > draft-rosenberg-dispatch-vipr-overview
> > > draft-rosenberg-dispatch-vipr-reload-usage
> > > draft-rosenberg-dispatch-vipr-pvp
> > > draft-rosenberg-dispatch-vipr-sip-antispam
> > >
> > > The working group will carefully coordinate with the security 
> > > area,
> O&M
> > > area, as well as the appropriate RAI WG including sipcore and
> p2psip.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dispatch mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> >
> >
> 
> 
> Cullen Jennings
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
> 


_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch