Re: [stir] Renaming E164Number

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Thu, 20 April 2017 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17145129BA4 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y10igVd-Uh_f for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22d.google.com (mail-qk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE4E0129B95 for <stir@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id d131so54871295qkc.3 for <stir@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=8PWcZPTyQibfO/baurUJprzRibulE/ML6plOIhVa2jk=; b=JcIYTfobNZ+yXwlTlkTkwDcf2dBMq00ENuVUOTEDKTHSRXXck8LXQWKyq0lLPwg+Ff /bRC6ArvA8xyo5VZYLGHkEDIhDUmjB1AR12ULl/sQDSZncK8nSrywP+Ngko+p4UBqd+D oqDI6oUbith9qNw6RMt2Lq1r2d6PD94B91Tko=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=8PWcZPTyQibfO/baurUJprzRibulE/ML6plOIhVa2jk=; b=YrKGE4F88fRJMc2yKoHHwSUOBhl7oM0tDtdvRMRwTWZazLNoTEKkgJcZg3et0Y/zh4 MrYwmdwLCy5AKXYmIcIYJTYqo+VQl/DMspfvxMOAuF6gvXAomRwJ0u4/nzNj/aQ4s5jy 2R5G4zKvm1d8aOK1viOQR08jjFTk5qPxmnluMEzVT7s8NBbLNtKasWcCFgEtqNDu1eRL X71E6IEhy9mD8k5BvlqgMBJvAvgFb/WhMwufzURayzNN1fKtDsrPz7BtEj+dcBQYpzPX MgFlO4Fk1vwC7QRETLG5cLD569PHCLcauh5qwuwt8EQLRSUi/EWasfL9FBg3GNFlYZFL A1zA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7Kxx48GTmdfghSY/kFDGqeZbsa93n4EJ75ivguPWGsl42xY6ad 60fNGNecoIuuRhUwgNw=
X-Received: by 10.55.124.66 with SMTP id x63mr8733628qkc.225.1492715060487; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.0.18] ([96.231.229.219]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f56sm4764787qta.14.2017.04.20.12.04.19 for <stir@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:04:18 -0400
References: <A803E7B6-2848-4640-AABE-87BBFEA9ACE2@sn3rd.com> <E42CCDDA6722744CB241677169E836564AD03061@MISOUT7MSGUSRDB.ITServices.sbc.com> <1043CA0F-0D2E-4130-A4B8-8AC060D34E6B@vigilsec.com> <301EC44E-15CB-47F2-88C4-1ED91FE023E6@chriswendt.net> <8CCC018C-3BB8-48AB-9365-5C52F22174CF@neustar.biz> <00C069FD01E0324C9FFCADF539701DB3BD10819B@sc9-ex2k10mb1.corp.yaanatech.com> <D5166B9A.1D8946%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <0185FA28-9D87-4833-8875-E0D343C4EF1F@vigilsec.com> <FF93C1E7-3BA8-4933-938E-85A4FD3FD55A@vigilsec.com> <00C069FD01E0324C9FFCADF539701DB3BD109E71@sc9-ex2k10mb1.corp.yaanatech.com>
To: "stir@ietf.org" <stir@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <00C069FD01E0324C9FFCADF539701DB3BD109E71@sc9-ex2k10mb1.corp.yaanatech.com>
Message-Id: <0E63A464-B59B-4BE2-9E85-DA7925315399@sn3rd.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/7Py5ImWAHEcKil9vTLDSfklx9Wo>
Subject: Re: [stir] Renaming E164Number
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stir/>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:04:45 -0000

All I’ve revised the PR to reflect switch the “TelephoneNumber”:
https://github.com/stirwg/certificates/pull/5

Note that I’ve got another PR to address the changes to ServiceProviderCodeList.

spt

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 14:27, Michael Hammer <michael.hammer@yaanatech.com> wrote:
> 
> That addressed my main concern.
> 
> I have qualms about dial strings, but
> will let this play out to see where it goes.
> 
> ________________________________
> Michael Hammer
> michael.hammer@yaanatech.com
> +1 408 202 9291
> 
> © 2016 Yaana Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Email confidentiality notice. This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stir [mailto:stir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 4:55 PM
> To: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [stir] Renaming E164Number
> 
> Ooops.  I put the (2..MAX) in the wrong spot.
> 
> Also, I think that the TNEntry for spa should not be a list since TNAuthorizationList can contain as many spa entries as desired.
> 
> My revised suggestion is:
> 
> TNAuthorizationList ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF TNEntry
> 
> TNEntry ::= CHOICE {
>  spc   [0] ServiceProviderCode,
>  range [1] TelephoneNumberRange,
>  one       TelephoneNumber }
> 
> ServiceProviderCode ::= IA5String
> 
> TelephoneNumberRange ::= SEQUENCE {
>  start TelephoneNumber,
>  count INTEGER (2..MAX)  }
> 
> TelephoneNumber ::= IA5String (SIZE (1..15)) (FROM ("0123456789#*"))
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 14, 2017, at 1:30 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Suggestion...
>> 
>> OLD w/ the addition of SIZE to TelephoneNumberRange:
>> 
>>    TNAuthorizationList ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF TNEntry
>> 
>>    TNEntry ::= CHOICE {
>>      spc   [0] ServiceProviderCodeList,
>>      range [1] TelephoneNumberRange,
>>      one       E164Number }
>> 
>>    ServiceProviderCodeList ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..3) OF IA5String
>> 
>>    TelephoneNumberRange ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (2..MAX) {
>>      start E164Number,
>>      count INTEGER  }
>> 
>>    E164Number ::= IA5String (SIZE (1..15)) (FROM ("0123456789#*"))
>> 
>> NEW:
>> 
>>    TNAuthorizationList ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF TNEntry
>> 
>>    TNEntry ::= CHOICE {
>>      spc   [0] ServiceProviderCodeList,
>>      range [1] TelephoneNumberRange,
>>      one       TelephoneNumber }
>> 
>>    ServiceProviderCodeList ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..3) OF IA5String
>> 
>>    TelephoneNumberRange ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (2..MAX) {
>>      start TelephoneNumber,
>>      count INTEGER  }
>> 
>>    TelephoneNumber ::= IA5String (SIZE (1..15)) (FROM
>> ("0123456789#*"))
>> 
>> If this is acceptable, then I ask the authors to make the changes and post an updated I-D.
>> 
>> Russ
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 14, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Peterson, Jon <jon.peterson@neustar.biz> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No mutual understanding of the semantics is required by the
>>> authentication and verification services here - though in practice,
>>> calls that are routed to destinations via a dial string with a * or #
>>> in it should end up going to fairly specialized pieces of equipment,
>>> and I'm actually less worried about canonicalization and so on being
>>> an issue for special dial strings like this than I am for ordinary
>>> E.164 numbers. We're not placing any restrictions on where in the
>>> dial string those non-numeric characters might appear, as there
>>> doesn't seem to be anything gained by doing so except introducing complexity.
>>> 
>>> In terms of what to call it, if we can't agree on Freddie, I do think
>>> TN or something similarly generic is appropriate. If we already have
>>> a group field for TelphoneNumberRange, why wouldn't the base element
>>> be TelephoneNumber? Or if we'd be overloading some existing
>>> registered name by using that, like TelNum or something?
>>> 
>>> Jon Peterson
>>> Neustar, Inc.
>>> 
>>> On 4/14/17, 10:56 AM, "Michael Hammer" <michael.hammer@yaanatech.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Jon,
>>>> 
>>>> Can the * and # be used arbitrarily anywhere in the string?
>>>> 
>>>> Is there some semantic to those characters that needs to be
>>>> understood by both the sender and receiver?
>>>> 
>>>> Or does it not matter because the recipient only treats it as an
>>>> opaque string?
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> Michael Hammer
>>>> michael.hammer@yaanatech.com
>>>> +1 408 202 9291
>>>> 
>>>> © 2016 Yaana Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Email
>>>> confidentiality notice. This message is private and confidential. If
>>>> you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove
>>>> it from your system.
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: stir [mailto:stir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peterson, Jon
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:19 AM
>>>> To: Chris Wendt <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net>
>>>> Cc: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>rg>; Russ Housley
>>>> <housley@vigilsec.com>om>; Martin C Dolly <md3135@att.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [stir] Renaming E164Number
>>>> 
>>>> Agreed. We are allowing these non-numeric characters in certs to
>>>> support a corner case that might arise in the future. Let's not
>>>> agonize over what to call the field.
>>>> 
>>>> Jon Peterson
>>>> Neustar, Inc.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 13, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Chris Wendt
>>>>> <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can we just call it telephoneNumber?  I think we are mostly arguing
>>>>> name here, right?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Martin:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> E.164 only allows digits.  What should we call a number that
>>>>>> include digits and * and #?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Russ
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 2017, at 7:13 PM, DOLLY, MARTIN C <md3135@att.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sean,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> DTMF has no end to end meaning for routing, but is meaningful
>>>>>>> between the UE and the SP processing those symbols.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Therefore, I do not see this as an issue.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: stir [mailto:stir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sean
>>>>>>> Turner
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 7:04 PM
>>>>>>> To: stir@ietf.org
>>>>>>> Subject: [stir] Renaming E164Number
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In another thread I remember seeing a suggestion to rename
>>>>>>> E164Number to DTMFNumber.  I created an issue:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_s
>>>>>>> tirwg_
>>>>>>> certificates_issues_4&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=G9v8uCS
>>>>>>> SQhCmp
>>>>>>> w7ItG0r2g&m=UhVA_2O-z5DN-Bdom_WhPcD_-4nWww1SYGSyTVjFPBA&s=DXAZMIa
>>>>>>> 2681lT 5v97AAp36rnY1CfZpJifa2PbpimkwQ&e= and here's the PR
>>>>>>> showing the resulting change:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_s
>>>>>>> tirwg_
>>>>>>> certificates_pull_5&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=G9v8uCSSQ
>>>>>>> hCmpw7
>>>>>>> ItG0r2g&m=UhVA_2O-z5DN-Bdom_WhPcD_-4nWww1SYGSyTVjFPBA&s=72Ta2iS7y
>>>>>>> Ncl-FC
>>>>>>> R5HdvXB5njEfC12k0kLz7QgCp87g&e=
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What do people think?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> spt
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> stir mailing list
>>>>>>> stir@ietf.org
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org
>>>>>>> _mailm
>>>>>>> an_listinfo_stir&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=G9v8uCSSQhCm
>>>>>>> pw7ItG
>>>>>>> 0r2g&m=UhVA_2O-z5DN-Bdom_WhPcD_-4nWww1SYGSyTVjFPBA&s=NSOnsQJ832Jf
>>>>>>> PXkcoe
>>>>>>> qf68PvPzxIr21SPbpPP4dg270&e=
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> stir mailing list
>>>>>>> stir@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> stir mailing list
>>>>>> stir@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> stir mailing list
>>>>> stir@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> stir mailing list
>>>> stir@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> stir mailing list
>>> stir@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> stir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
> 
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> stir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir