Hannes, I know the questions were directed at Henry. However, if I may intervene:
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig > Sent: 20 February 2008 08:00 > To: Henry Sinnreich > Cc: IETF SIP List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Richard Shockey > Subject: Re: [Sip] Infrastructure issues involving e164 numbers > > Hi Henry, > > there are two aspects to the story: > > * Do you believe there is a problem for security when interworking > between the PSTN and SIP? > (e.g., in the way how SIP Identity deals with E.164 numbers) [JRE] There are actually two separate situations: use of E.164 numbers for communication within the SIP world; and use of E.164 numbers when interworking between SIP and PSTN. Did you intentionally limit your question to the second of these? Assuming that was the intention, I would point out that we can never achieve end-to-end security when interworking with PSTN. The best we can do is achieve security across the local SIP part as far as the PSTN gateway. There are different opinions as to whether the PSTN itself is secure - I won't express an opinion on that aspect. However, what happens beyond the PSTN? Another SIP hop? An H.323 hop? There is no way of knowing whether that is secured or not. Some guarantee of security as far as the gateway is the best we can achieve, and, importantly, the user should be made aware of this - do not raise his expectations concerning the end-to-end security of the call. Let's concentrate on the end-to-end SIP case and provide a good security solution for that. One possibility might be to use email-style URIs for that. John > > * If yes, do you think that someone should be investigating what todo > about it? > > Don't get hung-up in the details of a specific strawman > proposal that, I > believe, shows quite well some of the challenges around the aspect of > E.164 number ownership. > > Ciao > Hannes > > > Henry Sinnreich wrote: > >> "Here is this problem, this is what we > >> (IETF) think, the solution is in your court. Have a nice day." > >> > > > > I believe this puts it in nutshell. > > > > The telecom specific uses of ENUM technology are more appropriately > > handled in the telecom standards organizations, such as the > ITU-T, and > > ETSI. > > > > Let's move on and work with Internet and web addressing > that I believe > > have the real potential for the Internet standards > development and where > > IETF resources are better placed. > > > > Thanks, Henry > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > > Richard Shockey > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:20 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: 'IETF SIP List'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [Sip] Infrastructure issues involving e164 numbers > > > > This is not to say that the IETF could play a useful and > essential role. > > We > > can certainly develop and define the requirements, use cases etc. > > > > In addition the IETF can architect a solution but > experience tells me > > that > > deployment and implementation issues surrounding e164 > issues will need > > the > > cooperation of "other bodies" which is where the problem > lies. It's not > > really the ITU, in fact the ITU is a much easier place to get things > > done > > these days. The complications arise with the ITU member states, who > > jealously guard their diplomatic and political prerogatives. > > > > This was the conclusion that we drew when the > Infrastructure ENUM issues > > first arose. We essentially said ..."Here is this problem, > this is what > > we > > (IETF) think, the solution is in your court. Have a nice day." > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:49 AM > >> To: Richard Shockey > >> Cc: 'IETF SIP List'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: Re: Infrastructure issues involving e164 numbers > >> > >> > >> > If there is going to be a solution to the SIP identity problem > >> involving > >> > e164 numbers, it will not IMHO be solved in the IETF. > >> > > >> > > >> Interesting view. I obviously does not appear to be an easy thing; > >> in the draft I called this "There is non-neglectable deployment > >> incentive challenge." > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
