Re: [stir] Interop related topics for STIR

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Roman:

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.

Russ


> On Jul 13, 2021, at 2:41 PM, Roman Shpount <[e-mail]> 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 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-18.1.1 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-18.1.1>). 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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.
>