Re: [stir] reality check

FYI folks the actual comments on CRTC Consultation 2017-4 are here.

There are only 26 or so.  I haven’t read through all of them but most of the comments are pretty predictable.  “Its early etc.” “Its premature.”  

In any event the CRTC has done a fine job here laying out some of the ongoing issues and they should be congratulated for doing so.  The current FCC proceeding ( CG Docket No 17-59 ) is an excellent first start on the Do Not Originate list but IMHO is by no means the last word on the subject. We haven’t heard from our British friends but I have confidence we will eventually. ☺ 

CIRA which is .CA is already lining up to act as the Trust Anchor in Canada.

https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/ListeInterventionList/Default-Defaut.aspx?en=2017-4&dt=i&lang=e&S=C&PA=C&PT=NC&PST=A

As for ITU-T,  I’m just not going there. 

— 

Richard Shockey

Shockey Consulting LLC

Chairman of the Board SIP Forum

www.shockey.us

www.sipforum.org

richard<at>shockey.us

Skype-Linkedin-Facebook –Twitter  rshockey101

PSTN +1 703-593-2683

From: stir <stir-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Tony Rutkowski <tony@yaanatech.com>
Organization: Yaana Technologies
Reply-To: <tony@yaanatech.com>
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 9:03 AM
To: Alex Bobotek <alex@bobotek.net>, Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, "DOLLY, MARTIN C" <md3135@att.com>
Cc: "stir@ietf.org" <stir@ietf.org>, "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Subject: [stir] reality check

Given the proclivity to use Bond themes,
it might be useful to take stock of what
seems like Never Say Die and the STIR/
SHAKEN gambit.

It is rather clear that given what is occurring
in different jurisdictions around the world,
STIR/SHAKEN has a chance of somewhere
close to zero to be implemented on even a
limited scale.  Talking about "governance"
seems delusional.

The only thing the FCC is doing is proposing
allowing regulated carriers to block traffic
at their customer's request. That is the best
possible outcome after what will be a long
comment and reply proceeding period, if not
additional litigation on multiple causes of
action.

Given the overwhelming negative responses
about STIR/SHAKEN in the CRTC proceeding
comment period ending yesterday - especially 
by Canadian industry, it seems highly unlikely 
they are going to be implementing anything
along the lines of STIR/SHAKEN.
https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/ListeInterventionList/Default-Defaut.aspx?

And then there is the rest of the world whose
views seem to range between outright rejection and
pursuit of probabilistic rather than ancient deterministic
(e.g., STIR/SHAKEN) solutions.  That was the 
reaction at the ETSI CYBER#9 meeting a few
weeks ago.  It is also reflected in the latest draft
on the subject into the upcoming ITU-T SG17 meeting.
Indeed, there are multiple other inputs - especially
by Alibaba - that point to a shift to probabilistic
options.  Indeed, that is where the innovations
are occurring - and the FCC NPRM/NOI fortuitously
allows for them.  Canada being a progressive nation
seems likely to encourage them as well.

The emerging enhanced/extensible versions of
CNAM that facilitate probabilistic solutions are
where the focus seems likely.  (I'm still waiting
for the ATIS' version to be make publicly available.
It seems like don't want anyone so see it.)

--tony

ps. STIR/SHAKEN looks rather like the old CCITT
clinging onto the ancient past. :-)

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