Subject: [dispatch] Update On Security (From Secure id)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:43:02 -0800

Hi,

Excuse if you receive multiple copies. from my list a/c
[email-masked] it didn't show up on the ietf.org list
server. So resending.

I submitted below draft, but didn't hear anything on the list.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-srivastava-dispatch-avoidance-of-
threats-00.txt

  I got some feedback from my personal invitation, so I am putting
it here as the update timeline is closed.

1) Why  3.2 work is brought to IETF as IETF is for concrete
protocol development.

   If 3.2 is acceptable by Technocrats, then it is easier to take
to law / policy makers. If proposal doesn't passes the engineering
gate, then  no point to take to the law/policy makers. So I am
seeking the engineeriners feedback to break the ideas with threat
scenarios etc.

  If 3.2 is accepted at the high level, then we need to work on the
concrete protocol item

  A) How to use/extend etc work of SIPREC group for complete
multimedia recordings.

  B) If Cashless Economy work is accepted at the high level, then
do we need SIP extensions for Business transactions. There was a
draft from Cullen for SIP payment etc as a possible solution for
SPAM problem.

2) I am waiting for the acknowldged party to disclose if they know
any IPRs etc.  If IPR makes this work Controversial for IETF.

3) Complete multimedia Recordings might make "Prision Always" etc.
IMHO, recordings are shared after the classification with the
consent from concerned parties. Law enforecement folks can look
into the recordings after proper legal (as per laws of geographic
regions) authorization only, It just makes sure that PRIVACY CANNOT
BE MISUSED.

4) If 3.2 fails here then we need to address issues brought to
unanswered issues listed in section 2.

Regards
Samir Srivastava