Re: Thoughts from IETF-92

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Wed, 01 April 2015 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0521AD0C0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 09:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.722
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MANGLED_WHILE=2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 Rqg8r-KxYb5K for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 09:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8155D1AD0C9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 09:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by labe2 with SMTP id e2so41053064lab.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 09:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ktdVfa4Qqm8XuiXNspGzAO1btRPFIO1vUbBpx4L842M=; b=mNT0YlERVNY+aPv0oZ7ynQo7V+/GCqEiLRhfbcG7QdoIqe17AvMo+l+qSC8dSS2qYs WT01zcGB6cHsoIDTm/7nPUaZ7f74qACwfHhUIm1NbirKNI+dhszCZXl7/Alxo61hvbfA UlN9joMsHoVtlI4EJ8lTO/WICrqtv3BYV8OruB4BEvcn/xhVmh5r+izRmQl5WHm2e/GL d6J3LVMFUADbMWQoVYyK14cS/pn9ky546voJeGlO0uuBd+Q5s+uALMixwbeChrdE7lFV Vk8keRQefJNvf9K2kOfvXUoWbJ8WcK2P2H7Pu2MwfQ2rVBhVqYHS3DScM7dmGluJomId XSqA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.120.8 with SMTP id ky8mr35276728lab.118.1427906158803; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 09:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.147.165 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 09:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D1417743.231A0%richard@shockey.us>
References: <7A5C678D-4897-4B9E-908F-14D7C389C48B@ietf.org> <D13F4955.22F18%richard@shockey.us> <551A0130.1050407@dcrocker.net> <D13F8475.22FD2%richard@shockey.us> <CABtrr-U2a3OyuUjGViDxDgLpNPX=nP6UgVtwqMxv96WeMokWLg@mail.gmail.com> <D1417743.231A0%richard@shockey.us>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 12:35:58 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: OLOyRrz7tH5k_2izUgLKywCidUg
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwiBYKkKFPB3YBhV1ySSiTyt9kZR=n-7YrmDgFyQQRY7aw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts from IETF-92
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NT3l4X0HwAEowKjPrjFjqRhToVU>
Cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:36:09 -0000

A meet up on general policy related stuff or the robocall scams?

I think it is absolutely clear that we can apply many of the
techniques used to control email spam to block robocalls in principle.
But the problem is that the telephone system architecture only gives
us stupid boxes with no APIs or ability to customize their function.

I suspect a large part of the problem is that most of the folk who
could work on this problem are cord cutters who use mobiles. Robocalls
are an increasing problem there as well but it is much smaller. I get
maybe one mobile robocall a month while there are six a day on the
home phone.

By telephone service, I mean the voice communication service I can
access from any of the 12 handsets in the house and allows me to call
anyone with a telephone number.

Now this is not where I want to be. I want to add more handsets for a
start and I would like the handsets to have effective encryption
between the handset and the base station.

Some things that I think would help (in no particular order).

1) State laws that require products with defective security (e.g. car
door keys, garage door openers, DECT6.0 phones) to be sold with large
stickers saying 'Defective Security'.

2) Someone producing a clear, easy to understand guide specifying the
hardware and service requirements for setting up an Internet telephony
system that provides an API allowing intelligent control

3) Hardware vendors who provide VOIP access points could provide API hooks.

4) A Web service protocol specification allowing the API to be
activated remotely.


For example, I would like to be able to program my telephone system to
add the following features:

* Direct voicemail to my own systems that NEVER EVER delete a message
or make me w-a-i-t w-h-i-l-e a v-e-r-y s-l-o-o-o-o-o-w s-p-e-a-k-e-r
t-e-l-l-s me stuff I already know.

* While in a call, I dial a code on the handset to white list that caller
* While in a call, I dial a code to black list that caller

* Control which incoming calls can cause the ringer to sound and at
which times of the day.

* Route calls to certain numbers end to end without going through the
PSTN at all.

* Place calls on Skype etc. directly.

Yes, I know, Asterix. But the ability to hack someone else's code is
not the same as being able to make one device talk to another over a
defined interface.


Apple, Cisco, Google and Microsoft are all players in this game right
now but none will deliver what the market needs. And they all could
with just a little willingness to make the system open.

The problem is that the telco people do not understand open systems
and don't think of opening up the system as a possible solution. It
simply isn't in their mid set.