-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/07/2011 03:34 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > This would break all the current deployments and implementation and not just > in a way where some new software would need to be pushed out - all new > certificates would need to be issues. From my point of view, this is too late > for this change and instead it could be addressed with an extension.
I agree that it is probably too late, but I am concerned that this modification is not really possible in an extension, but instead requires a new version of the protocol because it needs two signatures in SecureBlock and StoredData. > > On Jul 1, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > >> 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. - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Personal email: [email protected] Professional email: [email protected] Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk4WPn0ACgkQ9RoMZyVa61eLNQCgi614Bs6sdoajQ+ASRC/36JWk 5y8An1wyr5TbRVqZ6VTCEnfUfz0GIKud =viZ4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
