Re: [stir] Interop related topics for STIR

Russ Housley <> Tue, 13 July 2021 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB433A0CB3 for <>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wXehifO4ivlO for <>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB7313A0CB2 for <>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049F9300232 for <>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 14:57:23 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id WNw62RtrEIhk for <>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 14:57:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 072D1300B9F; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 14:57:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FFB7AA52-4257-434B-BDBB-D56D6FC064C7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 14:57:16 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: IETF STIR Mail List <>
To: Roman Shpount <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [stir] Interop related topics for STIR
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:57:28 -0000


Assuming that others agree with the way forward, it seems that 1-3 are the start of 8224bis, and it seems that 4 might be a new Operational Considerations in 8224bis.

Again, assuming agreement on the way forward, 8226bis should reflect real implementation.  That said, 8226 also envisions finer granularity than we have seen so far.

I think a STIR Torture Test document would be very valuable.


> On Jul 13, 2021, at 2:41 PM, Roman Shpount <> wrote:
> I am moving this into a new thread.
> So far the following RFC8224 issues were identified:
> 1. Errata regarding quotes in ppt value (Errata ID: 6519). Need to verify that both ppt values with and without quotes are supported when Identity header is received
> 2. Date header is required. It should probably be optional since the information there is redundant when the Full-Form PASSportT is used. Several known implementations omit it.
> 3. Should it be possible to omit ident-info and ident-info-params when the Full-Form PASSportT is used? All implementations I have seen include it, but there are occasional mismatches.
> 4. When SIP message is over 1300 bytes, the request MUST be sent using a congestion-controlled transport protocol such as TCP ( <>). Considering that the Identity header is typically around 1000 bytes, this requires all networks to start using reliable protocols which is not currently the case. There is a way to work around this for the private links where MTU is under vendor control, but for links over the public internet, this needs to be clearly stated and tested.
> 5. I do not think RFC8226 reflects the actual practices for STIR certificates.
> We should also consider an informational document with STIR Torture test messages as well as BCP.
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:57 PM Russ Housley < <>> wrote:
> I think that a SIPIT would be a very good thing, but that is not and IRTF activity.  That said, I would be very happy to use this list to know about a SIPIT once it is organized.
> Are there other interoperability or ops-orient topics about STIR that needed to be discussed?  If so, please start a thread.