Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

[Peter Musgrave <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>From my perspective what this is really about is the ability for me to have
interoperable ad-hoc video calls between businesses which can be established
via SIP with a "good enough" level of authentication and security.

ViPR appears to be the best candidate at this point. It has the advantage
that it is self-contained and not reliant on any centralized mechanism. It
is clearly not perfect and there will be issues which need careful
consideration (including some of the security issues you have raised w.r.t.
call id spoofing, number migration etc.).

Is there a specific disclaimer you would like to see added to the charter so
these limitations are clearly set forth in the WG definition or is your
objection irreconcilable?

Regards,

Peter Musgrave



On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Richard Shockey <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thank you Brother Conroy... this is a full IETF discussion since it does
> involve the creation of a new working group that does not seem to
> understand
> what is actually involved in E.164 validation.
>
> I do understand what this is really about..how do we screw global voice
> service providers since the IETF has not been able to convince normal folk
> to use SIP URI's.
>
> A reasonable objective, but I haven't seen many SIP URI on the back of
> plumbing or tree conservation trucks driving down my Reston VA
> neighborhoods
> recently. HTTP URI's are another thing.
>
> The real ultimate question is, can we, the SIP community, possibly learn to
> live with E.164 in SIP in some rational manner? Phone numbers are not going
> to go away as much as my dear friend Henry Sinnreich would prefer.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Conroy [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 7:46 PM
> To: Richard Shockey
> Cc: Paul Kyzivat; DISPATCH
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
>
> Hi Richard, folks,
>  [removing ietf-general as cross-posting this whole thread doesn't help,
> IMHO]
> I have remained silent so far, but just to clarify...
> Richard is absolutely correct.
> The comments on ENUM seemed to miss WHY public ENUM has been hard to roll
> out.
>
> Each country (or region) has its own idea of Eligibility criteria for ENUM
> domain registration in its jurisdiction.
> One thing they pretty much every one of the authorities agrees on is that
> *AT LEAST* there has to be a demonstrable proof that the domain owner is
> provided (or provides) service via the associated E.164 number.
>
> To say that this is a challenge to arrange cheaply or simply (or at all)
> is an understatement. Trust me; I know to my cost, as does Richard.
>
> Even that does not demonstrate that a value published in an ENUM domain
> MUST be, by some guarantee, always tied to that domain and its associated
> E.164 number. If I own a domain, I can provision what I like in that
> domain.
>
> The validation "hook" is tied some way to the numbering authority for E.164
> numbers in a particular jurisdiction, and there IS no validation authority
> that ties a SIP URI to an E.164 number.
>
> In private ENUM clouds, carriers "know their own" and trust partner
> carriers
> (at least partially). That's a set of contractual agreements, nothing more.
>
> The real question you have to ask is: can you gain access to the basic
> information on which the private ENUM domains provisioning is based?
> If you are part of that federation, then yes (at least you can query the
> private ENUM tree).
> If you are outside that federation, then no protocol magic is going to
> change that fact.
>
> Sorry for the long post, but it isn't a protocol issue; that well be
> LDAP (or something that scales). It's an operational and contractual
> agreement between CSPs, and last I heard that was not an IETF topic.
>
> all the best,
>  Lawrence
>
> On 5 Jul 2010, at 19:48, Richard Shockey wrote:
> > my assertion is that any authentication of the
> > responsible domain for a E.164 number outside of the PSTN service
> provider
> > or national numbering authority is not possible under the current
> regulatory
> > circumstances.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>