Re: [Rucus] comments on draft-niccolini-sipping-spam-feedback-00

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

Hi Saverio,

being wrong twice could be a post-submission deadline syndrome...

Some comments inline:

Saverio Niccolini wrote:
> Hannes,
>
>   
>> You are right that this mechanism does not make a lot of 
>> sense if you consider an architecture that uses authorization 
>> policies and whitelists in particular.
>>     
>
> Wrong...
> In the case a spammer will get through the "white list and authorization
> policies" framework then you have an additional weapon to just report abuse
> which is automatic and not manual (call my friend and tell him).
>   
Hmmm. Might be.
Certainly not my personal #1 choice.

> Telling it to your proxy could be a way of updating your authorization 
> policies (maybe even update your personal black list at the domain)
> and to share info on the caller with the domain (to get to a domain-wide
> reputation system, with all pros and cons)
>
>   
regarding the updating of the authorization policies: but then this 
would be another mechanism for updating policies in additional to the 
already standardized and already implemented way of doing it.


>> It makes some sense when you consider these statistical 
>> learning techniques that require "good" and "bad" examples to learn.
>>     
>
> Again wrong...
> The feedback can be also linked to "binary" decisions like:
> if I send a bad feedback for a caller "deny him from calling me
> for today" or "next time challenge him with a CAPTCHA"
>   

But this would be another way of modifying policies in addition to XCAP.

>   
>> This is obviously a -00 draft and I believe we should end up 
>> with this work is more something along the lines of Peter's work
>>
>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/error-abuse.html
>> where there is communication between proxies rather than 
>> between the end host and the proxy. 
>>     
>
> I agree there must be many updates to the draft (proxy to proxy
> communication is one of them) and I will take into account
> the valuable point of Jonathan when submitting the next version.
>
>   


Ciao
Hannes

> Saverio
>
>   
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>>     
>>> Thanks for writing this, its a good topic to discuss.
>>>
>>> One thing that wasn't clear; what is the benefit of signaling 
>>> something as spam to my proxy, as opposed to just putting 
>>>       
>> the sender 
>>     
>>> on a black list. We have mechanisms defined already for that, for 
>>> example. I suspect its around sharing of the spam 
>>>       
>> classification with 
>>     
>>> other users in the domain. Its worth discussing this.
>>>
>>> Seems easier if you just send the entire sip message as 
>>>       
>> content rather 
>>     
>>> than picking apart pieces of it.
>>>
>>> The mechanism is clearly intended to be between a UA and a proxy in 
>>> its own domain; however I didn't find that stated till much 
>>>       
>> deeper in 
>>     
>>> the document. This should be clear up front.
>>>
>>> In terms of specific protocols, I think SUB/NOT is a very 
>>>       
>> poor choice. 
>>     
>>> The proxy will require a subscription to EVERY UA, and the 
>>>       
>> events will 
>>     
>>> be infrequent. This means a lot of overhead for little 
>>>       
>> data. I think 
>>     
>>> you are much better off with an asynchronous push, either 
>>>       
>> PUBLISH or 
>>     
>>> even non-sip. Maybe a REST interface or something.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jonathan R.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rucus mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus
>>
>>     
>
>
> ============================================================
> Dr. Saverio Niccolini
> Senior Researcher
> NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division	
> Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg
> Tel.     [phone]
> Fax:     [phone]
> e-mail:  [e-mail] <-- !!! NEW ADDRESS !!!
> ============================================================
> NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria
> Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 283201
> _______________________________________________
> Rucus mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus
>   

_______________________________________________
Rucus mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus