Hi Dean,
this looks good for me - see one comment below.
Kai

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of Dean Willis
> Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Juni 2008 01:20
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Sip] First draft, RETIRE Charter
> 
> This is a first-pass at what I think we might do with a 
> RETIRE working  
> group
> 
> ---------------
> 
> 
> The "REal Time Identity and  Role Expression" (RETIRE) 
> Working Group's  
> purpose is to standardize the expression and assertion of 
> identity and  
> roles needed for real-time communications with the IETF's Realtime  
> Applications Infrastructure (RAI) area protocols, primarily the  
> Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and others used in 
> conjunction with  
> SIP.
> 
> By "Identity", we mean authenticated addresses of record (as defined  
> in RFC 4474 "Enhancements for Authenticated Identity 
> Management in the  
> Session Initiation Protocol". RFC 4474 provides a means by 
> which a SIP  
> server may vouch for the "From" address of a request transiting that  
> server. It further provides a cryptographic mechanism for 
> testing the  
> source of the assertion. In the typical case, this mechanism is  
> dependent on the same Public Key Infrastructure that supports secure  
> HTTP services. Since RFC 4474 provides only authentication of the  
> source of SIP request messages and it is also important to determine  
> the identity of the sender of responses, RFC 4916 "Connected 
> Identity  
> in the Session Initiation Protocol" provides authenticated 
> identity in  
> an ongoing SIP dialog by applying RFC 4474 to requests in the 
> reverse  
> direction. While adequate for some scenarios, this mechanism is not  
> useful for SIP interactions having a single non-dialog transaction,  
> such as MESSAGE requests. RFC 4474 suffers additional limitations  
> relating to its use with gateways, session border controllers, and  
> back-to-back user agents.
The whole discussion of the limitations with RFC 4474 came up in the
context of DTLS-SRTP and end-to-end security and the limited binding of
the identity and certificate fingerprint. From my point of view, this
should be added explicitly here.

> 
> By "Role", we mean aspects of a a system user that are related  
> identity, but more dynamic in nature. For example, Alice might  
> delegate her calls to Alice. A calling party, expecting to 
> reach Alice  
> but reaching Bob, needs to know that this is a reasonable thing and  
> what Bob's role in relation to Alice is. This problem is in general  
> referred to as the "unanticipated respondent problem", and it has  
> impacts both at the level of user expectations and key management.  
> Proposals for fixing it have included deprecation of proxy 
> retargeting  
> and the use of a new SIP provisional response to inform the calling  
> party about the retargeting operation.
> 
> Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) is an XML-based 
> standard for  
> exchanging authentication and authorization data between security  
> domains, that is, between an identity provider (a producer of  
> assertions) and a service provider (a consumer of 
> assertions). SAML is  
> a product of the OASIS Security Services Technical Committee. 
> The SIP  
> working group worked for several years on applying SAML to SIP with  
> mixed results, but the technique appears to have great promise.
> 
> 
> The initial deliverables of the RETIRE working group are:
> 
> 1) A standards-track revision of RFC 4474 that resolves its  
> limitations with respect to gateways, session border 
> controllers,  and  
> back-to-back user agents. This revision will also address the use of  
> Authenticated Identity Management in conjunction with SIP response  
> messages.
> 
> 2) Specify a solution for the Unanticipated Respondent Problem in SIP.
> 
> 3) Guidelines for the use of SAML with SIP for the purposes of  
> expressing identity and role, specifically in the contexts of #1 and  
> #2 above.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://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  https://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

Reply via email to