Hi, please, let me know whether or not these modifications will be included in the base draft at this point.
Thanks, Gonzalo On 21/06/2011 10:58 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: > I read the paper and this modification makes sense to me (for example without > this modification a peer that is purely used for routing and storage purpose, > like a bootstrap peer, had to invent a valid, unique, and useless username > just > to acquire a certificate). > > So I support its inclusion in draft-ietf-p2psip-base. > > On 06/09/2011 10:47 AM, Diego Suarez wrote: >> I think it would require a (slight) modification in the base document. >> Current P2PSIP certification model is based on a single PKC (including >> both usernames and nodeIDs) that uniquely identifies a user and her >> devices. On the other hand, our model is base on a split certification. >> Devices and users are independent. Each device has its own PKC including >> a nodeID and a PK. Similarly, each user has her own PKC including her >> username and a PK. This approach do not prevent a centralized entity >> (such as an offline CA) to have information related to the devices each >> user (or company, etc.) has registered, but permits, among other >> improvements, a user to be connected to the system through devices she >> has not registered herself such as a phone issued by a telco or a fixed >> phone in a laboratory shared by all the members of a research group. > > >> On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 10:05 -0700, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: >> Does this model really required modifications in the base document, or can >> it be >> designed as an extension? (Unfortunately the paper is not freely available, >> so >> it is difficult to know really what is needed for this). > >> On 06/09/2011 07:31 AM, Diego Suarez wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I had in mind writing a draft about this, but since I'm running out of >>>>> time, I would like to summarize a new certification model for P2PSIP I >>>>> have been working on, in case it is of interest for the group. >>>>> Further details can be found in paper: >>>>> >>>>> D. Touceda, J. Camara, L. Villalba, and J. Marquez, Advantages of >>>>> identity certificate segregation in P2PSIP systems, Communications, >>>>> IET, vol. 5, pp. 879889, Apr. 2011. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The idea is to split the certification of users and devices. Devices are >>>>> identified by PKCs including a nodeID and the PK of the device, while >>>>> users are identified by PKCs including a username and the PK of the >>>>> user. Similar models have been used before in other communications >>>>> systems, such as GSM where devices and users are separately represented >>>>> by the international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) stored in the >>>>> phones and the international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) stored in >>>>> the user subscriber identity module (SIM), respectively. >>>>> >>>>> Motivations of this model are: >>>>> >>>>> - Users and devices are different entities performing different >>>>> roles within a P2PSIP system. Devices are nodes of the P2P >>>>> overlay network (represented by a nodeID) that offer services >>>>> (to route messages, to store data, . . .) to the system, while >>>>> users (represented by an username) utilize these services, >>>>> usually to establish media communications using SIP. >>>>> >>>>> - Support for mobility scenarios where a user may be logged at different >>>>> devices at the same time using the same PKC. >>>>> >>>>> - Support several users to be logged in the same device (like a fixed >>>>> phone) at the same time. >>>>> >>>>> - Support for user independent hard-coded devices. >>>>> >>>>> - Interoperability with SIP. SIP certificates are not valid in actual >>>>> P2PSIP since they don't include a nodeID. >>>>> >>>>> cheers >>>>> >>>>> Diego Suárez >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 09:48 -0700, David A. Bryan wrote: >>>>>> Unless something major comes up, we plan to request the newest version >>>>>> of the base draft, draft-ietf-p2psip-base-15, be published. I'll put >>>>>> in the request in a week (June 16th or 17th). If there are any further >>>>>> comments from the last call a while ago (or further comments on the >>>>>> comments since then), please send them to the list ASAP. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> David (as chair) >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> P2PSIP mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> P2PSIP mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
