Frank, If you have a solution in mind, please let us know.
You are just as much "in control" of standards as anybody else in this group. SIPS is indeed not end-to-end. Yes, we know that. SIP in general is also not end-to-end. End-to-end comes at a cost, as we've seen with S/MIME, MIKEY and others. There are environments where it is easier and more appropriate to use than others. > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank W. Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 18:37 > To: Jonathan Rosenberg > Cc: IETF SIP List; Drage, Keith (Keith); Kevin Johns > Subject: Re: [Sip] WGLC on draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-01 > > > > With all due respect, seriously. > > This part of why you think we need sips argument reduces to: > its been there for a long time and it hasn't been fixed it so > it provides real end-to-end security, and since there's > nothing else, other draft writers have been forced to > reference it so lets just maintain the status quo. > > Again, with all due respect, I don't think this is a > reasonable argument. The fundamental problem with sips is > that its not end-to-end. > If it were end-to-end, there would be no discussion it would > just be getting implemented and used. How long will it be > before those "in control" of the standards realize that there > is a pressing need, indeed a requirement, among the users of > the standard for true end-to-end security and put something > that "they" think is OK in place to address it? > > Faithfully submitted, > Dougla... *cough* > > FM > > > On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 20:13 -0400, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > > This is part of why I think we need sips - we have countless drafts > > which reference it as the security mechanism to use when > you want to > > protect against modification of signaling messages by > off-path attackers. > > > > Thus, I think this draft should continue the current policy and > > reference sips. > > > > Thanks, > > Jonathan R. > > > > Kevin Johns wrote: > > > > > Keith, > > > > > > I have reviewed this document. The only question I have is its > > > reference to SIPS as a way to mitigate some security risks. Given > > > the status of SIPS I was unsure whether it should be listed as a > > > mechanism for addressing possible security risks? > Otherwise this document looks good. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Kevin Johns > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:42 AM > > > To: IETF SIP List > > > Subject: RE: [Sip] WGLC on draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-01 > > > > > > A reminder that you now have just one week to reply on this WGLC. > > > > > > It would be nice to have some indication that people have even > > > looked at this reasonably short document. > > > > > > Remember, if we cannot get this document out of the door, then we > > > cannot get ICE out of the door either. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Keith > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:09 PM > > >>To: IETF SIP List > > >>Subject: [Sip] WGLC on draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-01 > > >> > > >>(As WG chair) > > >> > > >>WGLC has just commenced in the MMUSIC WG on > > >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-15.txt > > >> > > >>This is to announce a parallel WGLC on > > >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-ice-option- > > >>tag-01.txt > > >> > > >>The dates of the WGLC are identical to those in MMUSIC. > > >>Therefore please provide responses to the WGLC by 20th April 2007. > > >> > > >>Comments on the SIP document should be provided to the SIP list > > >>only, and to the editor. Please provide comments clearly > indicating > > >>the page > > > > > > > > >>or section, the text to be changed (copy and paste!), and the > > >>proposed > > > > > > > > >>modification if possible. > > >> > > >>Regards > > >> > > >>Keith > > >> > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > > >>This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > > > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > > > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use > [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
