Re: [sipcore] Bad Location Information in draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-03
"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Thu, 22 July 2010 21:08 UTC
Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30CC3A6998 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.315
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.315 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.284, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 kCyx9BZfcD9S for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 835A93A6968 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAEtQSEyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbACfdHGnbpsehTYEhAA
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2010 21:09:14 +0000
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8714.cisco.com [10.99.80.21]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6ML9EXv011843; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:09:14 GMT
Message-Id: <201007222109.o6ML9EXv011843@sj-core-3.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:09:13 -0500
To: Alissa Cooper <acooper@cdt.org>, sipcore@ietf.org
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A29736AF-DAF4-4BB4-B13D-16DEE3EDF123@cdt.org>
References: <A29736AF-DAF4-4BB4-B13D-16DEE3EDF123@cdt.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Bad Location Information in draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-03
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:08:59 -0000
At 02:50 PM 7/22/2010, Alissa Cooper wrote: >Section 4.2 of draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-03 says: > > A SIP intermediary can also reject a location it receives from a > Target when it understands the Target to be in a different location. > The proper handling of this scenario is for the SIP intermediary to > include the proper location in the 424 Response. This SHOULD be > included in the response as a MIME message body (i.e., a location > value), rather than as a URI; however, in cases where the > intermediary is willing to share location with recipients but not > with a user agent, a reference might be necessary. > >Does this leave the Target's ability to spoof its location up to the >discretion of the SIP intermediary? Alissa - I'm not 100% I understand the direction of your question - but here is my first try. If you're asking that an intermediary *can* prevent a Target from lying, the answer is yes. why is this prevented? Because the intermediary could be literally standing in the way of this message's progressing further into the network towards the destination, and believes (not consciously of course) that it knows better where the Target is than what is in the SIP request. The intermediary has a couple of alternatives: - it could send a 424 response with the only location it will accept in a subsequent SIP request from that Target, or - it could compose a dual location PIDF and return it to the Target to have it send in the subsequent SIP request, or - it could overwrite the existing location, unbeknownst to the Target, and deliver that to the destination UAS. The work around is to not have that intermediary in the signaling path in any subsequent SIP request - but only works *if* the Target learns that the intermediary is doing this in the first place, which wouldn't be the case (easily) if the intermediary is just overwriting the Target's location. I don't see any other way around this. If we state that this MUST NOT happen, that'll fly in the face of what IMS is defining where "UEs (i.e., UACs) aren't to be trusted with this kind of information", as just one example. Did I get your question right (even if you did or did not like the answer)? James >Thanks, >Alissa > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >sipcore mailing list >sipcore@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
- [sipcore] Bad Location Information in draft-ietf-… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [sipcore] Bad Location Information in draft-i… James M. Polk
- Re: [sipcore] Bad Location Information in draft-i… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [sipcore] Bad Location Information in draft-i… Alissa Cooper