Re: [Rucus] ARF BoF: no SIP?

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Sun, 20 September 2009 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9D63A68E8 for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cWy0NEf30vi3 for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 952F63A6869 for <rucus@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEAIfztUqrR7MV/2dsb2JhbACKbKtmiFABjXsFhBs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,419,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="244312714"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2009 16:21:53 +0000
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n8KGLqxm005108; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:21:52 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n8KGLq9X008469; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:21:52 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:21:52 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:21:52 -0700
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'John R Levine' <johnl@taugh.com>
References: <021101ca37f4$81144e60$5da36b80@cisco.com> <20090919020041.2533.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <018401ca3a0a$613508b0$c6f0200a@cisco.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0909201157510.1840@simone.lan>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:21:52 -0700
Message-ID: <029d01ca3a0e$76b81890$c6f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0909201157510.1840@simone.lan>
Thread-Index: Aco6C9z7dl3f9AvIQpW9DSjXvZS+oAAAoBVA
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Sep 2009 16:21:52.0340 (UTC) FILETIME=[765F7140:01CA3A0E]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=586; t=1253463713; x=1254327713; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Rucus]=20ARF=20BoF=3A=20no=20SIP? |Sender:=20; bh=dIi+A0CjosUPPslIdGK1C2gi9yjh6a1vwCRecIFpnig=; b=sXNNOX+7x4AtN/15Uoxc0wvYbtBYJnWF958SgB+EHOiBFVERa9fkHggLo/ 13BwB/rfu4k2SbrxqIEzaFHJJ4+hkXukgVbjTibrkzT+PYkqS6Bj6TKa2cii Q9R3P5Kc3tJiy718aHDEQz4wn+De4iSMp62KV7XNbwTIDikOSfAVY=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
Cc: rucus@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Rucus] ARF BoF: no SIP?
X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" <rucus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus>, <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus>
List-Post: <mailto:rucus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus>, <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:20:54 -0000

> > My only thought is that if ARF is going to be extended to cover
> > things like SSH and FTP attacks, it should also cover SIP (and,
> > to Peter's point) and XMPP.
> 
> Oh, sure.  Indeed, they fit into ARF a lot better than SSH 
> does since they 
> have something that obviously makes sense as the included 
> 2822 message, 
> but I hope I can keep ARF for mail and do something else for 
> all the other kinds of evil.

Sounds reasonable for ARF.

RUCUS, if it ever gets off the ground, could look at ARF as a 
baseline to extend into SIP-ARF or something.

-d