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

["Thomas C. Schmidt" <[e-mail]>]

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.

Cheers,
  Thomas
-- 

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon: [phone] °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: [phone] °