Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 30 June 2010 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B885A3A68E3 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.017
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LUzdm3xfBJxh for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A443A68DA for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id o5UBvX5i023506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:57:46 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.47]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:57:39 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:57:32 +0200
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
Thread-Index: AcsW68aFVkigk7ZdTtGETvPVzGv2rQBX3Klg
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE213FF2EB5@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <AANLkTintQWiM1BNi1Lz11i4AEUm4vnpFhHNRPRMs6ctG@mail.gmail.com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE213F8C43A@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <AANLkTiknOb92nDGrm9sjD5LLh9mvkVqSS75SrzyGrniX@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiknOb92nDGrm9sjD5LLh9mvkVqSS75SrzyGrniX@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.83
Cc: DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:57:40 -0000

It is not clear whether you are proposing a rewrite that removes the names of the deliverables, and therefore removes the problem that way, or not. Without seeing words, I cannot comment on the specifics of that.

In any case, the minimum change to me is to remove the words indicated.

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 7:00 PM
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: DISPATCH
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
> 
> Hi Keith,
> 
> That's a valid concern and we can rewrite the deliverables as 
> functional descriptions as we have done for other WG charters 
> even in cases where documents existed (e.g., overload).  The 
> current text is trying to say that these documents map to 
> deliverables and can be used as WG documents, although as it 
> notes these should be considered starting points (i.e., it's 
> understood the proposed WG has change control), but certainly 
> the current text is somewhat misleading.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mary.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:43 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) 
> <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> > I have a major issue with including "which shall form the 
> bases of the WG documents" into the charter. To me this is 
> confusing the charter discussion with the working group that 
> might eventually result deciding what its deliverables, and 
> their contents, shall be.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org
> >> [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes
> >> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 6:38 PM
> >> To: DISPATCH
> >> Subject: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Below, please find version 3 of the VIPR proposed charter.
> >> It's been updated to reflect ML feedback, in particular 
> VAP has been 
> >> added and clarifications have been made with regards to impacts 
> >> (i.e., none) on existing PSTN interfaces.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Mary
> >> (DISPATCH WG co-chair)
> >>
> >> ============================================
> >> VIPR Charter Proposal (Version 3)
> >>
> >> WG Name:  Verification Involving PSTN Reachability (VIPR)
> >>
> >> There are two globally deployed address spaces for communications 
> >> used by more than a billion people daily - phone numbers and DNS 
> >> rooted address such as web servers and email addresses. The 
> >> inter-domain signaling design of SIP is primarily designed 
> for email 
> >> style addresses yet a large percentage of SIP deployments 
> mostly use 
> >> phone numbers for identifying users. The goal of this 
> working group 
> >> is to enable inter-domain communications over the the 
> Internet, using 
> >> protocols such as SIP, while still allowing people to use phone 
> >> numbers to identify the person with whom they wish to communicate.
> >>
> >> The VIPR WG will address this problem by developing a peer to peer 
> >> based approach to finding domains that claim to be 
> responsible for a 
> >> given phone number and validation protocols to ensure a reasonable 
> >> likelihood that a given domain actually is responsible for 
> the phone 
> >> number. In this context, "responsible" means an administrative 
> >> domain, which is at least one of the domains, to which a 
> PSTN call to 
> >> this phone number would be routed. Once the domain responsible for 
> >> the phone number is found, existing protocols, such as SIP, can be 
> >> used for inter-domain communications.
> >>
> >> Some validation protocols may be based on knowledge 
> gathered around a 
> >> PSTN call; for example, the ability to prove a call was 
> received over 
> >> the PSTN based on start and stop times.
> >> Other validation schemes, such as examining fingerprints or 
> >> watermarking of PSTN media to show that a domain received a 
> >> particular PSTN phone call, may also be considered by the working 
> >> group. This validation will be accomplished using publicly 
> available 
> >> open interfaces to the PSTN, so the validation can be performed by 
> >> any domain wishing to participate.  The WG will select and 
> >> standardize at least one validation scheme.
> >>
> >> The validation mechanism requires a domain to gather and maintain 
> >> information related to PSTN calls.  This information is 
> used by call 
> >> agents such as phones, SBCs and IP PBXs to route calls.  
> The WG will 
> >> define a client-server protocol between these call agents and the 
> >> entity within a domain that maintains the information.
> >>
> >> To help mitigate SPAM issues when using SIP between 
> domains, the WG 
> >> will define a mechanism to enable one domain to check that 
> incoming 
> >> SIP messages are coming from a validated phone number.  A phone 
> >> number is considered validated if it is coming from a 
> domain to which 
> >> the calling domain had previously successfully placed a 
> PSTN call.  
> >> The working group will define new SIP headers and option tags, as 
> >> necessary, to enable this.
> >>
> >> The essential characteristic of VIPR is establishing 
> authentication 
> >> by PSTN reachability when it is not possible to use a direct 
> >> reference to ENUM databases or other direct assertions of 
> PSTN number 
> >> ownership. Elements such as public ENUM easily coexist 
> with VIPR but 
> >> no direct interaction with ENUM will be required.  The 
> solution set 
> >> defined by this WG will be incrementally deployable using only 
> >> existing interfaces to the PSTN.  No changes will be required to 
> >> existing PSTN capabilities, no new database access is 
> needed nor is 
> >> any new support from PSTN service providers required.
> >>
> >> The problem statement and some possible starting points 
> for solutions 
> >> are further discussed 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
> >> draft-rosenberg-dispatch-vipr-vap
> >>
> >> The working group will carefully coordinate with the 
> security area, 
> >> O&M area, as well as the appropriate RAI WGs such as sipcore and 
> >> p2psip.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dispatch mailing list
> >> dispatch@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>