Re: [stir] Review of: draft-ietf-stir-passport-05

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

I wouldn't say it's a correction to the STIR charter - the charter was
always clear that it was not limited to SIP (see the bits about "one or
more non-SIP hops" and "out-of-band mechanism" in the charter). But given
that our original signing mechanism was, as I said, a concatenation of SIP
header field values, the intervention was that other protocols would need
something less bound to SIP. JWT turned out to be the solution that the
group had consensus to adopt.

If you want a record of this intervention, I might point you to the Oct 9
2015 virtual interim where this was the focus:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stir/current/msg02140.html


... and then the intense list discussion that followed hard upon it. This
is turn led to some design team calls, and so on. It was not a
particularly isolated or unconsidered decision.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 7/29/16, 7:27 PM, "Dave Crocker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 7/29/2016 10:12 AM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
>> We had a major intervention in the work last fall to the effect that we
>> need to build more generically for real-time communications rather than
>> just SIP.
>
>
>I'm not clear what this means.  Can you point to the record of this
>intervention?  And how it changes the technical requirements?  And how
>the current specifications are responsive to that change in scope?
>
>And since the scope was changed, why wasn't the charter:
>
>      The STIR working group will specify Internet-based mechanisms that
>allow verification of the calling party's authorization to use a
>particular telephone number for an incoming call.
>
>
>
>d/
>-- 
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net