Re: [stir] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-05

[Pierce Gorman <[e-mail]>]

Now there’s a better response.  Thank you Richard.

I agree asking for money for voice network modernization in the big 3 has to be a depressing exercise.  It wasn’t fun back when I was having to do it several years ago.  Nokia, Ribbon, and Ericsson are probably not supporting their old TDM switches for free, and there is a significant maintenance and facilities cost (and electric bill) for keeping all those switches going.  And I expect scouring gray market sources for parts is becoming increasingly challenging (or impossible?).  Even so, network finance folks can be damnably difficult to work with.  Maybe a series of FCC-reportable outages from old failing equipment will help the budgets.

Anyway, there is nothing inherently special about out-of-band STIR which prevents it from being used in a secure fashion any more than there is something inherent about web browsing or SIP trunks that prevents those from being used in a secure fashion.  The question isn’t whether it’s possible.  The question is whether to use it for STIR/SHAKEN once it’s been satisfactorily established to have been sufficiently secured.

That question isn’t before the FCC’s NANC, but if it gets asked there, I expect the CATA working group may become significantly more interesting to be a member of (and I’ve been a member of all 4 instances so far).

Cheers,

Pierce

From: Richard Shockey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 3:57 PM
To: Pierce Gorman <[e-mail]>; Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>
Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [stir] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-05


EXTERNAL EMAIL
In line…

From: stir <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Pierce Gorman <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 10:59 AM
To: Richard Shockey <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [stir] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-05

At the risk of annoying someone I consider a friend, I think Richard is being a little disingenuous.  He knows better than most people the barriers to all IP and the #1 problem is NOT a lack of capital.

RS> Its somewhat more nuanced than that. You are a network VP and you want to invest in SIP IP and junk the C4 C5 crap that is out there. You go the CFO of ATT or any carrier and what they tell you is NO.  “What is the ROI on this investment?”  “What is the new revenue it will generate?” Voice as we both know is a tough business these days.


Two of the three biggest TDM providers spend multiple billions of dollars a year on Radio Access Network (RAN) infrastructure for their mobile networks.  Probably somewhere between 1% and 5% of their annual capital budgets would be sufficient to modernize their networks and eliminate TDM.  I say this having been one of the lead engineers at Sprint who helped eliminate more than 99% of the TDM from the network.  It wsSasn’t expensive but it did take a few years.

For the largest TDM providers, the sticking point is offering VoIP access on the same terms as they offer TDM.  This is largely a regulatory issue, not a technical issue.

RS> True very True.  That has been understood for years.  Interconnected VoIP lives in a strange place at FCC. It is regulated but only because of the authority in Section 251 e 1 numbering and the Public Safety obligations.  Though I’m convinced and so are a lot of people that the TRACED act does give the FCC authority to mandate a conversion if for no other reason than fighting robocalls.   BTW there is a similar problem in Canada ..don’t ask me why I know. <g>

Brian Ford, a lobbyist with NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association, has said for years the majority of their 800+ members are VoIP-enabled on the line side of their infrastructure.  The trunk side remains TDM.  The reason is the small, mostly rural, service providers say they cannot afford VoIP access and routing on commercial terms different than what they currently enjoy with TDM connectivity.  And if I understand correctly, the large TDM providers are still able to recover facilities costs on TDM facilities that were totally amortized a couple of decades ago.

The result is a regulatory and commercial stalemate that for whatever reasons (that I’m pretty certain Richard knows better than I do) the FCC has declined to address.

RS>  I know Brian Ford and his boss Mike Romano very well and we have had this discussion for years. All would be solved if they could swap out SBC’s for the Tandems at the edge of their networks under the same terms and conditions.  The FCC never reformed Originating Access charges when they essentially eliminated Terminating Access to fight Traffic Pumping.


For what it’s worth, out-of-band (OOB) signaling is very popular in the TDM infrastructure.  It’s called SS7.

RS> Which is also an insecure POS that needs to die ASAP.

Anyway, STIR OOB is valuable as a plausible approach to assist in ubiquitous deployment of STIR/SHAKEN (mandated by Congress and the FCC) in a heterogenous TDM/IP infrastructure.

RS> With all due respect, my friend, OBB is a total waste of time effort and capital.  Especially with 45 billion US dollars of BEAD money ready to hit the pipeline.

Beyond that STIR OOB may someday help with:

  *   all IP insofar as SIP INVITEs may routinely become overloaded with SIP “Identity” headers for one or more of the 6 existing or proposed standard types of STIR PASSporTs
  *   authenticating SMS messaging
  *   mutual authentication


RS> NEVER if I have anything to say about it in the FCC NANC.  I repeat OOB is a abomination.  I read the FCC docket here 17-59 17-97 every single day. I agree the FCC needs to act. So does the CRTC.  I will say OFCOM in the UK is actually talking a solid approach with a 2025 mandate to go all IP (which I’m positive they will miss) but they have to get their Common Numbering Database under control first.  The regulatory structure in the US is unique with the separation of Title 1 vs Title 2 telecom.  Most of the rest of the planet does not make those distinctions.  “If it looks like a Duck…”  For goodness sake I’ve been approached to do SIPIT for Rich Call Data but it would be nice to get a RFC number.  You know vendors. NO RFC number NO code. That problem seems to be beyond my pay grade.

Pierce


From: Richard Shockey <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 1:56 PM
To: Ben Campbell <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [stir] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-05


From: Ben Campbell <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 at 2:35 PM
To: Richard Shockey <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [stir] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-05

Hi Richard,

Can you elaborate on that?  Am I correct to assume that you object to out-of-band STIR as a general concept,


RS> Correct. OOB is a total waste of time and effort and CAPEX that would be better spent on converting these networks to all SIP/IP


or do you have objections specific to the details of this draft?

Thanks!

Ben.

On Mar 8, 2024, at 5:05 PM, Richard Shockey <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

For the record this entire document is an abomination.


Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
Chairman of the Board SIP Forum
www.shockey.us<http://www.shockey.us/>
www.sipforum.org<http://www.sipforum.org/>
richard<at>shockey.us<http://shockey.us/>
Skype-Linkedin-Facebook –Twitter  rshockey101
PSTN [phone]


From: stir <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, March 8, 2024 at 5:12 PM
To: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [stir] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-05

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 9:03 AM Ben Campbell via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Ben Campbell has requested publication of draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-05 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the STIR working group.

Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob/

AD Evaluation:
This seems to be in pretty good shape.  I'll send it along after I explore one thing:
Section 4 curiously avoids any sort of commitment around how the CPS advertisement would be discovered.  Might be a database, might be DNS, might be some private distribution system, maybe something else.  Should any of those (assuming examples already exist) be described here?  Or how would one get started in this regard absent such guidance?

-MSK
_______________________________________________ stir mailing list [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
_______________________________________________
stir mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir

_______________________________________________ stir mailing list [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir