Hi, I have just requested an IETF LC for this draft. Therefore, these comments will be considered as IETF LC comments.
Cheers, Gonzalo On 01/07/2011 2:47 PM, 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
