Re: [sipcore] RESPONSE REQUESTED: SIPCORE work and milestones

+1  

“There is no Silver Bullet”

Henning is right.  These drafts are part of a whole suite of initiatives going on at multiple levels among multiple SDO’s.

It should also be pointed out that these initiatives are being supported by multiple National Regulatory Authorities.  

I might point out my presentation to NICC in the UK recently and the presentation by Huw Saunders the Director of Network Infrastructure for OFCOM the UK telecom regulator.  

http://www.niccstandards.org.uk/meetings/forum-2016.cfm

This is going to get deployed.  The SIP Forum along with ATIS are working on the STIR/ SHAKEN implementation profiles as we speak. 

I will say something else. The pending change in US Administration IMHO will not affect these initiatives in any way shape or form.

— 
Richard Shockey

Shockey Consulting LLC

Chairman of the Board SIP Forum

www.shockey.us

www.sipforum.org

richard<at>shockey.us

Skype-Linkedin-Facebook rshockey101

PSTN +1 703-593-2683

On 12/21/16, 4:02 PM, "sipcore on behalf of Henning Schulzrinne" <sipcore-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Henning.Schulzrinne@fcc.gov> wrote:

    A bit of background below.

    The two drafts are part of a broader suite of tools, and probably among the lower-importance ones compared to, in particular, the STIR caller ID authentication work. I think there is some consensus that a complete robocall prevention eco system consists of a number of components:

    (1) A way to validate caller ID, to prevent spoofing and to facilitate tracking and suitable law enforcement. (Spoofing makes the other parts hard or fail.) Law enforcement, besides putting a few spammers behind bars, changes the risk/reward calculus and thus discourages copy cats.

    (2) With authenticated caller ID, various block/black lists can work, decreasing the reach of spammers and thus again weakening their business model.

    (3) Given the challenges of not being able to do content analysis easily (or look at the history of domain names or senders), human feedback is important to populate the blacklists. Also, as for email, there's a significant gray zone of calls in between the clearly-wanted (calls from your spouse, one would hope) and the outright-criminal fraud. The "unwanted" draft allows for standards-based feedback by humans to make both automated blocking, for groups of customers and the individual, and enforcement work better.

    (4) Given the gray area and the general desire not to interfere with communications, for both customer-focused and, in some countries, legal reasons, some calls are best flagged and labeled rather than rejected, so that end systems or humans can make more nuanced decisions. Examples often cited include calls from charities, politicians and survey organizations, but also automated calls for prescription pickup, school snow days or outstanding debts. The 'callinfo' draft addresses this particular need.

    Both drafts are outgrowths of the Robocall Strike Force (https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2016/10/second-meeting-industry-led-robocall-strike-force) and were identified as standards gaps by the participants.

    Thus, the drafts are unlikely, by themselves, to solve the robocall problem, but hopefully they'll help in a small way.

    Henning

    -----Original Message-----
    From: sipcore [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dale R. Worley
    Subject: Re: [sipcore] RESPONSE REQUESTED: SIPCORE work and milestones

    >  3. A mechanism for labeling the nature of SIP calls, with
    >     <draft-schulzrinne-sipcore-callinfo-spam> as a likely candidate draft.

    Certainly spam calls are a problem in reality.  Do people consider this a way to help suppress them in practice?

    Dale

    _______________________________________________
    sipcore mailing list
    sipcore@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore