Paul of course I've read them, though the PVP document is uniquely dense and
gave me a headache. Security by ID Obscurity.
My assertion still stands. In the absence of any linkage in the PVP to the
E164 numbering authorities and or databases any assertion about verification
and validation of a E.164 is in essence self validation. The charter does
NOT state that. My point is the proposed charter is badly written and
implies a trust model that does not exist.
You make a phone call if it answers and you hopefully get a caller ID that
hasn't been spoofed then maybe you are OK and maybe you hope the TTL is set
to some interval that doesn't cause number hijacking. But gee what happens
when the number is disconnected from the PSTN? Hummmm
The use of the term validation and or verification here implies
authentication and my assertion is that any authentication of the
responsible domain for a E.164 number outside of the PSTN service provider
or national numbering authority is not possible under the current regulatory
circumstances. Consequently the charter implies an ability to develop a
solution which we all know is impossible.
Solution rewrite the charter to note that fact that this is, in fact, "best
efforts" only, "full disclosure" or "caveat emptor" to be precise.
I'm not saying it might not work. As I used to tell Mark Spencer about DUNDI
it's a fine intra-domain PBX session routing protocol. Might work in some
highly integrated industries like airlines, auto etc but the empirical
evidence indicates a uphill battle.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 1:43 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: 'Peter Musgrave'; 'DISPATCH'; 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
Richard,
Have you actually read and understood the drafts that Jonathan submitted
on ViPR? I don't see how you could make the assertions you are making if
you had.
Thanks,
Paul
Richard Shockey wrote:
Well folks can certainly do what they want to do. And the IETF has a
lamentable record of some protocols that don't accomplish much. But the
core of this proposed WG is based on a fallacy. ViPR cannot verify or
authenticate the responsible party for a E.164 number. It is incapable
of doing so since there is no possible administrative chain of trust
other than self assertion . Hence the possibility of identity or
number/session hijacking is very large. You have to have the cooperation
of the national numbering authorities or the issuer of the phone number
to authenticate who is the responsible party . ViPR doesn't change that
problem either.
This has been a well known problem in SIP for some time and that was
part of the difficulties that public ENUM had in e164.arpa. ENUM is
doing very well BTW as a SS7/TCAP replacement however in private trees
BTW.
Consequently I think this issue has to be fully defined in the charter
and I will gleefully anticipate what the security considerations text
will look like.
The fact that there is CISCO running code is utterly irrelevant. There
is lots of bad code out there. I understand the problem of how do you
create SIP federations across domains outside the scope of service
providers, but without a comprehensive trust model this is going to
fail. I do understand that many folks don't like their voice service
providers or PSTN that perpetuates the use of E.164 numbers but this
proposal is not going to solve that.
IMHO in the absence of any rational trust or security model you can
certainly publish something as Informational but getting something past
the IESG is another thing entirely.
*From:* Peter Musgrave [mailto:peter(_dot_)musgrave(_at_)magorcorp(_dot_)com]
*Sent:* Saturday, July 03, 2010 5:49 PM
*To:* Richard Shockey
*Cc:* Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Mary Barnes; DISPATCH; IETF-Discussion list
*Subject:* Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
Hi Richard,
Clearly we don't want to be trying to solve the impossible - that could
take a really long time.
The mechanism in the ViPR drafts seemed to be able to accomplish the
"finding the party responsible for a number" - and IIRC this is based on
*running code* in the Cisco IME.
ViPR is frankly not beautiful (in the way ICE is not beautiful) but I do
think it can solve a problem which needs to be solved. Hence I support it.
Peter Musgrave
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Richard Shockey
<richard(_at_)shockey(_dot_)us
<mailto:richard(_at_)shockey(_dot_)us>> wrote:
A we already have centralized solutions for interdomain routing based on
E.164. its called ENUM in both its private and public instantiations. It
works pretty well BTW and globally deployed.
IMHO this charter is a non starter and should not be approved on the basis
of this statement alone.
"finding domains that claim to be responsible for a given phone number"
This IMHO is flat out impossible. Validating or authenticating an entity
that is "responsible for a phone number" is as bad as " who is the
carrier
of record" , is a massive rathole. Cullen and Johathan should know better.
Certs? LNP ?
We have this problem of E.164 validation all the time in SIP and its not
going to be solved in the IETF.
-----Original Message-----
From: dispatch-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:dispatch-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
[mailto:dispatch-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:dispatch-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>] On
Behalf
Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:33 AM
To: Mary Barnes
Cc: DISPATCH; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
It looks to me that one can imagine 'centralized' solutions which are
also based on reusing SIP related functionality developed in RAI. I
would rather not close such an option and allow the WG a window of
opportunity in which alternate solutions that could meet the same goals
can be presented.
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary Barnes
[mailto:mary(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:mary(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:24 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: DISPATCH; IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> The term peer to peer is intended to exclude mechanisms that
> would use a central repository for the information: This was
> discussed in an earlier thread:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg02027.html
>
> In one sense it is a solution, however, in another sense it
> is reusing SIP related functionality defined in RAI and thus
> is in a similar vein as specifying the use of SIP in a charter.
>
> Thanks,
> Mary.
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> <dromasca(_at_)avaya(_dot_)com <mailto:dromasca(_at_)avaya(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
> >> The VIPR WG will address this problem by developing a peer to peer
> >> based approach to finding domains that claim to be
> responsible for a
> >> given phone number and validation protocols to ensure a reasonable
> >> likelihood that a given domain actually is responsible for
> the phone
> >> number.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Clarification question. What exactly means 'peer to peer
> based approach'
> > and what kind of approaches are excluded by having this in
> the charter.
> > Does 'approach' mean solution? If so why does a specific type of
> > solution need to be agreed in the charter, while all we
> have at hand
> > at this point are individual contribution I-Ds that describe the
> > 'problem statement and some possible starting points for solutions'?
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dispatch-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:dispatch-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> >> [mailto:dispatch-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:dispatch-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes
> >> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 8:38 PM
> >> To: DISPATCH
> >> Subject: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
> >>
> >
>
_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:dispatch(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:dispatch(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf