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

[Pierce Gorman <[e-mail]>]

I'm an unabashed proponent of STIR OOB and do not assume my employer will directly benefit.

The benefit of sending authenticated calling information out-of-band will stand on its own. Just as SS7 solved problems, STIR OOB solves problems, and not just for STIR/SHAKEN.

Pierce



Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device



-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Shockey <[e-mail]>
Date: 3/17/24 11:18 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>, Pierce Gorman <[e-mail]>, IETF STIR Mail List <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [stir] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-05


EXTERNAL EMAIL

I have no objections to the publication of the draft as a RFC.

The IETF certainly has a number of RFC that cannot or will not ever be implemented. This is one of them.  This is the consensus view of every carrier I’ve spoken to about this. Not just the majors either. Many of the smaller rural carriers have implemented STIR/SHAKEN their problem has been negotiating IP interconnection agreements.

Of course there are proponents of OOB..typically the vendors who hope to profit from it.

This is ultimately a political issue.


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


From: Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, March 16, 2024 at 9:19 PM
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>, Richard Shockey <[e-mail]>, Pierce Gorman <[e-mail]>, IETF STIR Mail List <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [stir] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-stir-servprovider-oob-05




On Mar 17, 2024, at 10:55 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]> wrote:

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 10:50 AM Russ Housley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:



On Mar 16, 2024, at 8:47 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 8:48 AM Richard Shockey <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

OOB just sucks. I do not know one carrier that wants to implement it

The shepherd writeup for this document claims:

   The shepherd is aware of multiple non-public implementation efforts, but

   is not aware of any publicly available reports.

Are these two claims in conflict?  If so, which is right?

I do not see a conflict.  People have said that they are doing implementations, but they are not sharing any details or interoperability reports.

Hi Russ,

So there are implementations, but none by carriers?  Or are you disagreeing with Richard's claim?

There are vendor implementations or plans for implementations. Carriers may or may not deploy them. I suspect Richard (who I hope will correct me if I am wrong) is referring to “major” or “top-tier carriers”, but the full set of STIR/SHAKEN stakeholders is considerably larger and more diverse than just the major carriers. There are certainly proponents for OOB solutions in the ATIS Non-IP Call Authentication group.

But in any case, I think the discussion has turned to politics and market forces, which are not really in scope for STIR. My opinion as chair is that the working group has _rough_ consensus to publish it. Certainly not perfect consensus.

Thanks!

Ben.