From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Wed Feb 2 05:41:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065C43A6BF8 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 05:41:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.275 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.275 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.541, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T3uHW7logA40 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 05:41:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8583A6D02 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 05:41:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ([24.40.55.40]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.24263715; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 06:55:26 -0700 Received: from PACDCEXMB06.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::6134:ea50:286a:c0]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1dd:b302:b617:3755%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:44:24 -0500 From: "Livingood, Jason" To: "speermint@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: First SIPNOC - FYI Thread-Index: AQHLwt9Nrq+BZfKr1k26bFOAAuu0fA== Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:44:23 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 x-originating-ip: [147.191.125.12] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C96EC6F816AEFjasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Speermint] First SIPNOC - FYI X-BeenThere: speermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the speermint working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:41:29 -0000 --_000_C96EC6F816AEFjasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >From Eric Burger =96 worth checking out: // The SIP Forum is holding its first SIP Network Operators Conference (SIPNOC= ) on April 25th to the 27th, 2011, at the Hyatt Dulles Hotel in Herndon, Vi= rginia =96 a few minutes from Dulles International Airport. SIPNOC is a technical conference developed for service providers and carrie= rs to gather and discuss the challenges of deploying and implementing SIP-b= ased communications technology, and to share the best-practices and strateg= ies that enable the successful and profitable operation of SIP-based servic= es and applications in fixed and mobile IP network environments. Unlike oth= er events, this conference is for SIP network operations personnel, such as= NOC engineers, rather than a high-level conference for executives. For more information about SIPNOC, including the preliminary schedule of ev= ents and other important details about the conference, please visithttp://w= ww.sipnoc.org. The SIPNOC Program Committee is seeking proposals for presentations, panels= , or BOFs (Birds-Of-a-Feather sessions) for the SIPNOC 2011 program. We in= vite presentations highlighting issues relating to SIP network deployments.= Operators are encouraged to present on successes, issues, and concerns fou= nd in their deployments. Vendors are encouraged to work with operators to p= resent real-world deployment experiences. The deadline for submission of presentation/paper abstracts and draft slide= s is February 21, 2011. Full details of the submission process and policies, as well as other SIPNO= C 2011 dates of interest, can be found at: http://www.sipforum.org/content/view/374/275/ I look forward to seeing you at the event! Best Wishes, Eric Burger SIPNOC Chair --_000_C96EC6F816AEFjasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <8863D145D2FA4047B0921A07D4EC1137@cable.comcast.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From Eric Burger = =96 worth checking out:
//

The SIP Forum is = holding its first SIP Network Operators Conference (SIPNOC) on April 25th t= o the 27th, 2011, at the Hyatt Dulles Hotel in Herndon, Virginia =96 a few = minutes from Dulles International Airport.

SIPNOC is a techn= ical conference developed for service providers and carriers to gather and = discuss the challenges of deploying and implementing SIP-based communicatio= ns technology, and to share the best-practices and strategies that enable the successful and profitable operation of SIP-= based services and applications in fixed and mobile IP network environments= . Unlike other events, this conference is for SIP network operations person= nel, such as NOC engineers, rather than a high-level conference for executives.
For more informat= ion about SIPNOC, including the preliminary schedule of events and other im= portant details about the conference, please visithttp://www.sipnoc.org.

The SIPNOC Progra= m Committee is seeking proposals for presentations, panels, or BOFs (Birds-= Of-a-Feather sessions) for the SIPNOC 2011 program.  We invite pr= esentations highlighting issues relating to SIP network deployments. Operators are encouraged to present on successes,= issues, and concerns found in their deployments. Vendors are encouraged to= work with operators to present real-world deployment experiences.

The deadline for = submission of presentation/paper abstracts and draft slides is February 21,= 2011.

Full details of t= he submission process and policies, as well as other SIPNOC 2011 dates of i= nterest, can be found at:

I look forward to= seeing you at the event!
Best Wishes,
Eric Burger
SIPNOC Chair
--_000_C96EC6F816AEFjasonlivingoodcablecomcastcom_-- From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Thu Feb 3 00:57:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE393A689B for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 00:57:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.622 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a2wvMCQZDh8g for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 00:57:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D0D3A68A4 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 00:57:45 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7cfbae000005c8e-9f-4d4a6ed35400 Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EF.0D.23694.3DE6A4D4; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:01:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.175] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.234.1; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:01:05 +0100 Message-ID: <4D4A6ED1.5060008@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 11:01:05 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Seedorf References: <4CA35805.80606@ericsson.com> <4CE26FC7.10605@ericsson.com> <2779C9F0771F974CAD742BAE6D9904FE7EC444@PALLENE.office.hd> In-Reply-To: <2779C9F0771F974CAD742BAE6D9904FE7EC444@PALLENE.office.hd> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: "speermint@ietf.org" , Saverio Niccolini , Eric Chen , "hendrik.scholz@voipfuture.com" Subject: Re: [Speermint] AD review: draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-05 X-BeenThere: speermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the speermint working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:57:47 -0000 Hi Jan, thanks for addressing the comments. I have just requested an IETF LC for this draft. Cheers, Gonzalo On 25/01/2011 3:14 PM, Jan Seedorf wrote: > Dear Gonzalo, > > Thanks for your - indeed valid - comments on our -06 version of draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats. Sorry for taking a while, your comments resulted in quite some changes in the draft. I just posted a new -07 version, let me explain below how we think we addressed your comments in this version: > >>> While message modification and eavesdropping is included in the >>> threats against SF and MF, they do not seem to appear in the threats >>> against LRF and LUF. Why? > Indeed message modification and eavesdropping are threats also for the LUF and LRF. We assumed those addressed with "confidentiality" and "integrity". We added some more text now, e.g. specifically mentioning "eavesdropping" and "message modification" under "confidentiality" and "integrity", respectively, for the LUF and LRF. For us, it was implicit that when one talks about confidentiality he/she indirectly talks about "eavesdropping", and when one talks about integrity he/she indirectly talks about "message modification". Anyway, we hope the text now explicitly makes this clear. > >> Also, the reasons why Section 4.5 recommends TCP over UDP are still not >> clear. UDP over DTLS would meet the requirements in both Sections 3.2 >> and 4.5. > This is a very good point, which caused changes in section 4.5, 3.2, and in some other parts. At the time we started writing this draft back in 2007, RFC4347 on DTLS was less than a year old and there was no mature implementation of DTLS at the time. Companies designing NGN at the time did not consider DTLS for the same reason. Since it has been more than three years, nowadays there seem to be quite a few DTLS implementations (at the IETF privacy workshop in Dec., I talked with Eric Rescorla about this and he confirmed that some stable implementations exist by now). We now updated the sections, saying that transport layer security can be either DTLS or TLS, depending on the use of the underlying transport protocol (UDP or TCP). Thus, we also do not recommend TCP over UDP anymore, and the section was renamed to "4.5 Secure Exchange of SIP messages". Accordingly, the former section "4.13. Encryption and Integrity Protection of Signaling Messages" is now obsolete and we had to update also section 3.2., mentioning DTLS as an alternative to TLS. > > We hope the draft is in better shape now and that all your comments have been addressed. > > Sorry again for taking so long, > > - Jan > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: speermint-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:speermint-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Gonzalo Camarillo >> Sent: Dienstag, 16. November 2010 12:49 >> To: speermint@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Speermint] AD review: draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-05 >> >> Hi, >> >> thanks for having submitted a new revision of this draft: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-06 >> >> This revision addresses most of my comments below. However, I do not >> think I got an answer to the following question: >> >>> While message modification and eavesdropping is included in the >>> threats against SF and MF, they do not seem to appear in the threats >>> against LRF and LUF. Why? >> >> Also, the reasons why Section 4.5 recommends TCP over UDP are still not >> clear. UDP over DTLS would meet the requirements in both Sections 3.2 >> and 4.5. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> On 29/09/2010 5:15 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> a couple of days ago I received a publication request for the following >>> draft: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats/ >>> >>> Here you have my AD review of the draft (see below). The authors should >>> be able to address all my comments fairly quickly. As soon as they >>> revise the draft I will initiate its IETF LC. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Gonzalo >>> >>> >>> draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-05 >>> >>> Expand acronyms on their first use (e.g., SPEERMINT in the title and >>> VoIP in the Introduction). >>> >>> The Abstract and the Introduction attempt to explain the relationship >>> between this draft and draft-ietf-speermint-requirements. However, >>> Section 3.1 does a better job at that. Could you please clarify in the >>> Introduction that the requirements in draft-ietf-speermint-requirements >>> were derived from the threats documented in this draft? Also, please >>> clarify that in addition to be the base for those requirements, this >>> draft provides countermeasures to meet those requirements. Any SPEERMINT >>> expert will probably understand that by reading the Abstract and the >>> Introduction but clarifying those points will help readers who have not >>> been that involved in the process. >>> >>> While message modification and eavesdropping is included in the >>> threats against SF and MF, they do not seem to appear in the threats >>> against LRF and LUF. Why? >>> >>> Section 4.5 recommends to use TCP instead of UDP. That advice is great, >>> but the reasons Section 4.5 discusses are not that strong. The fact that >>> the linux kernel has improved is irrelevant if an operator uses >>> non-linux boxes. Also, an operator using UDP over IPsec, for instance, >>> will not face the problems described there. The main recommendation in >>> Section 4.5 seems to actually be to use an integrity protection >>> mechanism. Clarifying that section would be useful. >>> >>> [refs.sbcfuncs] has been published as RFC 5853 >>> >>> A few references only include the title and the author fields. Adding >>> the venue where they were published would be useful. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Speermint mailing list >> Speermint@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint > From Jan.Seedorf@neclab.eu Thu Feb 3 01:04:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015E93A6895 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 01:04:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.208 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cg8ixyadq74h for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 01:04:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de (smtp0.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F7A3A6879 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 01:04:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D75C28000189; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:09:20 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas1.office.hd) Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas1.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G-dnZ7MCJP3e; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:09:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (ENCELADUS.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E205F2800017B; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:08:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from DAPHNIS.office.hd ([169.254.2.15]) by ENCELADUS.office.hd ([192.168.24.52]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:07:46 +0100 From: Jan Seedorf To: Gonzalo Camarillo Thread-Topic: [Speermint] AD review: draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-05 Thread-Index: AQHLX+kxWnxLUqNcV0qrWRp/Ps/5e5N0OA6AgG4nduCADdGtgIAAEmlg Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:07:45 +0000 Message-ID: <2779C9F0771F974CAD742BAE6D9904FE80E9C1@DAPHNIS.office.hd> References: <4CA35805.80606@ericsson.com> <4CE26FC7.10605@ericsson.com> <2779C9F0771F974CAD742BAE6D9904FE7EC444@PALLENE.office.hd> <4D4A6ED1.5060008@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4D4A6ED1.5060008@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.2.226] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "speermint@ietf.org" , Saverio Niccolini , Eric Chen , "hendrik.scholz@voipfuture.com" Subject: Re: [Speermint] AD review: draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-05 X-BeenThere: speermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the speermint working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:04:46 -0000 Dear Gonzalo, Thanks, great, See you in Prague, - Jan > -----Original Message----- > From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com] > Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Februar 2011 10:01 > To: Jan Seedorf > Cc: speermint@ietf.org; Saverio Niccolini; Eric Chen; > hendrik.scholz@voipfuture.com > Subject: Re: [Speermint] AD review: draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-05 >=20 > Hi Jan, >=20 > thanks for addressing the comments. I have just requested an IETF LC for > this draft. >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Gonzalo >=20 >=20 > On 25/01/2011 3:14 PM, Jan Seedorf wrote: > > Dear Gonzalo, > > > > Thanks for your - indeed valid - comments on our -06 version of draft-i= etf- > speermint-voipthreats. Sorry for taking a while, your comments resulted i= n > quite some changes in the draft. I just posted a new -07 version, let me > explain below how we think we addressed your comments in this version: > > > >>> While message modification and eavesdropping is included in the > >>> threats against SF and MF, they do not seem to appear in the threats > >>> against LRF and LUF. Why? > > Indeed message modification and eavesdropping are threats also for the = LUF > and LRF. We assumed those addressed with "confidentiality" and "integrity= ". We > added some more text now, e.g. specifically mentioning "eavesdropping" an= d > "message modification" under "confidentiality" and "integrity", respectiv= ely, > for the LUF and LRF. For us, it was implicit that when one talks about > confidentiality he/she indirectly talks about "eavesdropping", and when o= ne > talks about integrity he/she indirectly talks about "message modification= ". > Anyway, we hope the text now explicitly makes this clear. > > > >> Also, the reasons why Section 4.5 recommends TCP over UDP are still no= t > >> clear. UDP over DTLS would meet the requirements in both Sections 3.2 > >> and 4.5. > > This is a very good point, which caused changes in section 4.5, 3.2, an= d in > some other parts. At the time we started writing this draft back in 2007, > RFC4347 on DTLS was less than a year old and there was no mature > implementation of DTLS at the time. Companies designing NGN at the time = did > not consider DTLS for the same reason. Since it has been more than three > years, nowadays there seem to be quite a few DTLS implementations (at the= IETF > privacy workshop in Dec., I talked with Eric Rescorla about this and he > confirmed that some stable implementations exist by now). We now updated = the > sections, saying that transport layer security can be either DTLS or TLS, > depending on the use of the underlying transport protocol (UDP or TCP). T= hus, > we also do not recommend TCP over UDP anymore, and the section was rename= d to > "4.5 Secure Exchange of SIP messages". Accordingly, the former section "4= .13. > Encryption and Integrity Protection of Signaling Messages" is now obsolet= e and > we had > to update also section 3.2., mentioning DTLS as an alternative to TLS. > > > > We hope the draft is in better shape now and that all your comments hav= e > been addressed. > > > > Sorry again for taking so long, > > > > - Jan > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: speermint-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:speermint-bounces@ietf.org] O= n > Behalf > >> Of Gonzalo Camarillo > >> Sent: Dienstag, 16. November 2010 12:49 > >> To: speermint@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Speermint] AD review: draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-0= 5 > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> thanks for having submitted a new revision of this draft: > >> > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-06 > >> > >> This revision addresses most of my comments below. However, I do not > >> think I got an answer to the following question: > >> > >>> While message modification and eavesdropping is included in the > >>> threats against SF and MF, they do not seem to appear in the threats > >>> against LRF and LUF. Why? > >> > >> Also, the reasons why Section 4.5 recommends TCP over UDP are still no= t > >> clear. UDP over DTLS would meet the requirements in both Sections 3.2 > >> and 4.5. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Gonzalo > >> > >> > >> On 29/09/2010 5:15 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> a couple of days ago I received a publication request for the followi= ng > >>> draft: > >>> > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats/ > >>> > >>> Here you have my AD review of the draft (see below). The authors shou= ld > >>> be able to address all my comments fairly quickly. As soon as they > >>> revise the draft I will initiate its IETF LC. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Gonzalo > >>> > >>> > >>> draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-05 > >>> > >>> Expand acronyms on their first use (e.g., SPEERMINT in the title and > >>> VoIP in the Introduction). > >>> > >>> The Abstract and the Introduction attempt to explain the relationship > >>> between this draft and draft-ietf-speermint-requirements. However, > >>> Section 3.1 does a better job at that. Could you please clarify in th= e > >>> Introduction that the requirements in draft-ietf-speermint-requiremen= ts > >>> were derived from the threats documented in this draft? Also, please > >>> clarify that in addition to be the base for those requirements, this > >>> draft provides countermeasures to meet those requirements. Any SPEERM= INT > >>> expert will probably understand that by reading the Abstract and the > >>> Introduction but clarifying those points will help readers who have n= ot > >>> been that involved in the process. > >>> > >>> While message modification and eavesdropping is included in the > >>> threats against SF and MF, they do not seem to appear in the threats > >>> against LRF and LUF. Why? > >>> > >>> Section 4.5 recommends to use TCP instead of UDP. That advice is grea= t, > >>> but the reasons Section 4.5 discusses are not that strong. The fact t= hat > >>> the linux kernel has improved is irrelevant if an operator uses > >>> non-linux boxes. Also, an operator using UDP over IPsec, for instance= , > >>> will not face the problems described there. The main recommendation i= n > >>> Section 4.5 seems to actually be to use an integrity protection > >>> mechanism. Clarifying that section would be useful. > >>> > >>> [refs.sbcfuncs] has been published as RFC 5853 > >>> > >>> A few references only include the title and the author fields. Adding > >>> the venue where they were published would be useful. > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Speermint mailing list > >> Speermint@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint > > From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Thu Feb 3 06:01:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED5F3A697E; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:01:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.512 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I9PG9Oh-MSQD; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:01:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763CF3A68CF; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:01:55 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.12 Message-ID: <20110203140155.24131.62506.idtracker@localhost> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 06:01:55 -0800 Cc: speermint@ietf.org Subject: [Speermint] Last Call: (Session Peering for Multimedia Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Security Threats and Suggested Countermeasures) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: speermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Mailing list for the speermint working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:01:56 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect WG (speermint) to consider the following document: - 'Session Peering for Multimedia Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Security Threats and Suggested Countermeasures' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-02-17. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Thu Feb 17 12:00:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BE63A6EA6; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:00:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.519 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tw1ic1oZWne6; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:00:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59CFE3A6EA5; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:00:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.12 Message-ID: <20110217200001.25185.2479.idtracker@localhost> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:00:01 -0800 Cc: speermint@ietf.org Subject: [Speermint] I-D Action:draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-18.txt X-BeenThere: speermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the speermint working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:00:12 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect Working Group of the IETF. Title : Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect Architecture Author(s) : D. Malas, J. Livingood Filename : draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-18.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2011-02-17 This document defines a peering architecture for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), its functional components and interfaces. It also describes the components and the steps necessary to establish a session between two SIP Service Provider (SSP) peering domains. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-18.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-18.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-02-17114733.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com Fri Feb 18 05:47:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DCC73A6DF6 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 05:47:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.23 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.495, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LqVL62LPKLWY for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 05:47:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 184D13A6E02 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 05:47:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ([24.40.55.42]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.26471095; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 06:57:33 -0700 Received: from PACDCEXMB06.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::6134:ea50:286a:c0]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1e7:20b5:9b63:21a6%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:46:03 -0500 From: "Livingood, Jason" To: "speermint@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Speermint] I-D Action:draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-18.txt Thread-Index: AQHLzt1jkY5cPGn2mU2a1w9cbev/wpQHRq6A Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:46:01 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110217200001.25185.2479.idtracker@localhost> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 x-originating-ip: [147.191.227.141] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Speermint] I-D Action:draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-18.txt X-BeenThere: speermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the speermint working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:47:36 -0000 This update was based on IESG feedback, to clear comments and discusses. We now await only Jean-Francois Mule's update of the requirements draft to close out our various documents. Jason On 2/17/11 3:00 PM, "Internet-Drafts@ietf.org" wrote: >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the Session PEERing for Multimedia >INTerconnect Working Group of the IETF. > > > Title : Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect >Architecture > Author(s) : D. Malas, J. Livingood > Filename : draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-18.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 2011-02-17 > >This document defines a peering architecture for the Session >Initiation Protocol (SIP), its functional components and interfaces. >It also describes the components and the steps necessary to establish >a session between two SIP Service Provider (SSP) peering domains. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-18.t >xt > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. >_______________________________________________ >Speermint mailing list >Speermint@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Fri Feb 18 13:45:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BAD53A6E55; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:45:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.491 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sqaQRolFsqCq; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:45:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C8F3A6AAE; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:45:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.12 Message-ID: <20110218214501.3744.43555.idtracker@localhost> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:45:01 -0800 Cc: speermint@ietf.org Subject: [Speermint] I-D Action:draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-19.txt X-BeenThere: speermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the speermint working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:45:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect Working Group of the IETF. Title : Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect Architecture Author(s) : D. Malas, J. Livingood Filename : draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-19.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2011-02-18 This document defines a peering architecture for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), its functional components and interfaces. It also describes the components and the steps necessary to establish a session between two SIP Service Provider (SSP) peering domains. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-19.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-19.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-02-18134346.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com Tue Feb 22 08:03:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E16E53A692D for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:03:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.684 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.684 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KFi1QRl3ul7i for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:03:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEEF43A6929 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:03:20 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c78ae000005844-db-4d63de749ec7 Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 4D.E3.22596.47ED36D4; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:04:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.238] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.234.1; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:04:04 +0100 Message-ID: <4D63DE74.4060607@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:04:04 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: speermint@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [Speermint] Status of our WG items X-BeenThere: speermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the speermint working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:03:22 -0000 Folks, FYI: this is the status of our WG items: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/speermint/ I have requested the approval of the architecture draft. The requirements draft will be approved as soon as its editor performs a few minor changes requested to address comments on the draft. The use cases draft is in the RFC Editor's queue. I have placed the voipthreats draft on the agenda of the IESG telechat on March 3rd. Cheers, Gonzalo From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Tue Feb 22 11:26:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: speermint@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1DA3A6884; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:26:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s3upJYWlISRT; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:26:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927463A68DA; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:26:54 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.12 Message-ID: <20110222192654.11481.96447.idtracker@localhost> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:26:54 -0800 Cc: speermint chair , speermint mailing list , Internet Architecture Board , RFC Editor Subject: [Speermint] Document Action: 'Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect Architecture' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-19.txt) X-BeenThere: speermint@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the speermint working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:26:56 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect Architecture' (draft-ietf-speermint-architecture-19.txt) as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speermint-architecture/ Technical Summary This document defines a peering architecture for the SIP between two or more service provider domains. Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish this document. A Working Group Last Call has been issued, and we have achieved consensus and resolved all concerns. All changes suggested by the WG have been made to this draft. A NITS review has also been performed and those changes made as well. Document Quality Good quality - no issues Personnel Document Shepherd: Jason Livingood Responsible AD: Gonzallo Camarillo IANA Experts Required: No