>From the original mail: > (Because this is security related we have agreed that SIP does the > requirements drafting and not SIPPING) >
I did agree this with the SIPPING chairs before sending the mail out. Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Burger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:32 PM > To: IETF SIP > Cc: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Subject: Re: [Sip] Certificate authentication in SIP > > Why not SIPPING, the home of requirements? > > > On 6/25/07 6:40 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Sorry, I had missed this going by until someone pointed it out ... > > > > Basically, I would support this work in SIP WG, which does > seem like > > the right place at least for requirements (can see where it > goes next from there). > > > >> So can I hear opinions of the WG on: > >> > >> - whether this represents a problem space > that the working > >> group > >> should draft requirements on? > > > > SIP WG seems like as good a place as any, at least for requirements. > > > >> > >> - whether the problem space exists but is > something slightly > >> different, and if so what is that problem space? > > > > Yes, the problem space exists. > > > >> > >> - whether there is a more general problem > that the security > >> area > >> should be addressing, rather than the SIP group addressing > something > >> specific? > > > > Develop the *requirements* first, then ask this question. A worthy > > question for this list would be whether the requirements > should expand > > to use cases beyond Registrar interactions (e.g to Invite, > > Subscribe/Notify, or to streaming uses, etc). Of course, > the Security > > Area should be involved regardless, esp at solution time. > > > >> > >> - based on your answers to the first three > questions, whether > >> this > >> draft is essentially in the right direction to be adopted > as the WG > >> draft assuming we create the charter item, or whether we > need to seek > >> some other input draft? > > > > I believe it is close, modulo wondering about expansion beyond > > Register as above. (Could dicker over details...) > > > >> > >> - and finally, whether (assuming we go > ahead with this work) > >> there > >> is any work in any other IETF WG that we should take account of? > > > > Dunno. > > > > -- Peter Blatherwick > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:58 AM > > > > To: IETF SIP List > > > > Subject: [Sip] Certificate authentication in SIP > > > > (As WG chair) > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dotson-sip-certificate-auth- > > 03 > > > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dotson-sip-certificate-auth > > -03> > > .txt > > > > Describes a set of requirements for: > > > > This document defines requirements for adding certificate > > authentication to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). This > > document is being presented with the intention of providing clear > > requirements to any potential solutions specifying certificate > > authentication within SIP networks. Supporting certificate > > authentication in SIP would provide strong authentication and > > increase the types of possible deployment scenarios. > > > > (Before we go any further, please forget all about the solutions > > document - that comes later and we are not dealing with it now) > > > > We need to decide whether there is support for a body of > work in this > > area, and therefore whether we should charter some > requirements work > > in the SIP WG. > > > > (Because this is security related we have agreed that SIP does the > > requirements drafting and not SIPPING) > > > > So can I hear opinions of the WG on: > > > > - whether this represents a problem space > that the working > > group > > should draft requirements on? > > > > - whether the problem space exists but is > something slightly > > different, and if so what is that problem space? > > > > - whether there is a more general problem > that the security > > area > > should be addressing, rather than the SIP group addressing > something > > specific? > > > > - based on your answers to the first three > questions, whether > > this > > draft is essentially in the right direction to be adopted as the WG > > draft assuming we create the charter item, or whether we > need to seek > > some other input draft? > > > > - and finally, whether (assuming we go ahead > with this work) > > there > > is any work in any other IETF WG that we should take account of? > > > > > > Regards > > > > Keith > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Keith > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > > <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip> > > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use > > sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on > current sip Use > > sipping at ietf.org 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 > > > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, > may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its > subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be > confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally > privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the > individual or entity named in this message. If you are not > the intended recipient, and have received this message in > error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > _______________________________________________ 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
