Re: [P2PSIP] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-20: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,

On 19/04/16 22:43, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On 19.04.2016 23:05, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> - 5.1: I guess it's too late to ask, but I'll ask
>> anyway, just in case this hasn't yet been implemented
>> and it's not too late... I can see why you want to
>> support SIP URIs and can't e.g. only support SIPS URIs
>> here.  But in supporting SIP URIs couldn't you have
>> taken an opportunistic security approach to using TLS
>> and e.g. maybe treated a SIP URI as if it's a SIPS URI
>> except for the certificate validation step? I do get
>> that that might restrict re-use of unmodified SIPS
>> stacks but maybe that'd be ok in this context. Any
>> chance of considering that or is it too late or a case
>> where there's not enough energy/interest?  (EIther form
>> of "no" is a very reasonable answer.)
>>
> 
> I guess, something similar to opportunistic security is actually
> happening on the RELOAD overlay. All links are (D)TLS encrypted. Further
> security additives are out of scope for the moment, I would be tempted
> to say.
> 
>> - Just out of curiosity, are folks deploying this
>> anywhere?
>>
> 
> The whole P2PSIP story is suffering from a much delayed standards
> process (it started in 2006). For example, we had a joint implementation
> with Deutsche Telekom and quite a number of others had efforts, too. All
> this seems quite a while ago. Currently, we are more on finishing the
> work that unfortunately had circulated way too long in the WG.

Understood. In that case, I'm fine with you not trying to polish
it more.

Cheers,
S.


> 
> Cheers,
>  Thomas