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

[Pierce Gorman <[e-mail]>]

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.

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 wasn’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.

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.

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

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.

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

Pierce


From: Richard Shockey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 1:56 PM
To: 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


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