I agree that something along the lines of enum could solve this problem, and I believe there was a draft that proposed such a thing. This has been discussed since the start of rfc4474.
However, I fear that saying, 'use enum' is kind of like saying, we'll just use an All-Knowing Oracle, so lets figure out the interface protocol to the Oracle. The easy part is the interface (the enum mechanism). The actual hard problem is how to get those entries populated. The deployment of public enum has been - shall we say - less than spectacular. I'd hate for that to be our only solution. Not that its obvious what else to do; though I do suggest in my draft how domain based authentication, when combined with whitelists and blacklists, can help. -Jonathan R. Paul Kyzivat wrote: > Jonathan, > > I guess the time has come for this discussion, since John Ewell has also > submitted a draft on this subject. > > I thought the problem was already well known, but perhaps not. IMO the > main thing now is to figure out the *solution* to the problem! > IMO a solution is to use a 4474-style approach, but where the > certificate is tied to just the phone number, not to some arbitrary > domain name. That of course would depend on a model where the "owner" of > the phone number is the one who may obtain the certificate for that number. > > My thought is that we already have an algorithmic mapping from an E.164 > phone number to a domain name, defined by enum. If the sender puts an > E.164 number in From, and can sign it with a cert for the enum mapped > domain name corresponding to that number, then that ought to be valid > proof of the validity of the sender. > > In those places where public enum is in operation, I think there is > already a legal mechanism in place to give the owner of record of a > particular phone number control over the contents of the corresponding > DNS entry. That should also be sufficient to allow a certificate > authority to assign a cert to that same owner. > > Combine all that and you have a complete e2e identity model for phone > numbers, based on public enum. And that can be true even if public enum > isn't used to *route* the calls to that number. So it could be used for > "unlisted" numbers. > > To use this approach the From header should contain either a TEL URI, or > a sip/sips URI containing the enum-mapped domain name corresponding to > the phone number. (I would rather see the TEL used for this - it is more > user friendly.) > > Thanks, > Paul > > Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: >> I just submitted: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-sip-rfc4474-concerns-00.txt >> >> >> >> This is basically a discussion on the security properties of rfc4474 >> with phone numbers, and a comparison to rfc3325 in this case. Also a >> discussion on what happens to dtls-srtp. >> >> Comments welcome. >> >> -Jonathan R. > -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 499 Thornall St. Cisco Fellow Edison, NJ 08837 Cisco, Voice Technology Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (408) 902-3084 http://www.cisco.com _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list http://www.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
