From extest-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu May 1 05:27:39 2003 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA03456 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 05:27:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h419UkR01900 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 05:30:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 05:30:46 -0400 Message-Id: <200305010930.h419UkR01900@share.research.bell-labs.com> Subject: lists.bell-labs.com mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@lists.bell-labs.com To: spirits-archive@ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes X-Ack: no Sender: extest-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: extest-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: extest@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your lists.bell-labs.com mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, spirits-request@lists.bell-labs.com) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@lists.bell-labs.com. Thanks! Passwords for spirits-archive@lists.ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- spirits@lists.bell-labs.com unmora http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/options/spirits/spirits-archive%40lists.ietf.org From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Fri May 16 20:26:28 2003 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15288 for ; Fri, 16 May 2003 20:26:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4H0T1R07700; Fri, 16 May 2003 20:29:01 -0400 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (ns2.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4H0SJR07687 for ; Fri, 16 May 2003 20:28:19 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by crufty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4H0S49Y073862 for ; Fri, 16 May 2003 20:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id D014B443A5; Fri, 16 May 2003 20:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: spirits@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2CA443A4 for ; Fri, 16 May 2003 20:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4H0RuUf008120 for ; Fri, 16 May 2003 20:27:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop-5.dnv.wideopenwest.com (pop-5.dnv.wideopenwest.com [64.233.207.23]) by dusty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4H0Q8EQ041695 for ; Fri, 16 May 2003 20:26:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ieee.org (d14-69-94-76.nap.wideopenwest.com [69.14.76.94]) by pop-5.dnv.wideopenwest.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4H0RnG08905; Fri, 16 May 2003 19:27:49 -0500 Message-ID: <3EC5820C.2000903@ieee.org> From: Alec Brusilovsky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SPIRITS list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [SPIRITS] Minutes, protocol issues and next meeting agenda Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 19:27:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ladies and Gentlemen, In preparation for the next meeting in Vienna, please take a close look at our minutes from the March meeting in SF. The minutes and associated viewgraphs could be found at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/minutes/spirits.htm http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/index.html It is time now to close all outstanding protocol issues (security is number one in our list) Kind regards, Alec Brusilovsky abrusilovsky@ieee.org Naperville, IL USA +1.630.369.8196 _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Tue May 27 22:24:28 2003 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15140 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 22:24:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4S2N1R05234; Tue, 27 May 2003 22:23:01 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4S2MhR05221 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 22:22:43 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4S2MSHa029052 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 22:22:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 1DDF9443A5; Tue, 27 May 2003 22:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: spirits@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD00443A4 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 22:22:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4S2MLUf067105 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 22:22:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from grimy.research.bell-labs.com (grimy.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.57]) by dusty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4S2NXER029771 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 22:23:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from linux.research.att.com (H-135-207-24-16.research.att.com [135.207.24.16]) by grimy.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4S2MJcn039743 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 22:22:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bigmail.research.att.com (bigmail.research.att.com [135.207.30.101]) by linux.research.att.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h4S2MoEI026985 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 22:22:50 -0400 Received: from berkshire.research.att.com (raptor.research.att.com [135.207.23.32]) by bigmail.research.att.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4S2LIV03261 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 22:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from research.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by berkshire.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD3AD7B6C for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 19:41:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 From: Steve Bellovin To: SPIRITS list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20030527234148.AD3AD7B6C@berkshire.research.att.com> Subject: [SPIRITS] draft-ietf-spirits-security-00.txt Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 19:41:48 -0400 I've read through the security document; here are a few comments. Section 2 says "interfaces in the PSTN ... are assumed to be secured by the virtue of their being in a controlled network". That isn't an acceptable line of reasoning. Fortunately, PSTN security is out of scope for SPIRITS and the IETF; that sentence should be reworded to say just that. 3.1: A lot turns on the question of "authorization" -- what does each party have a *right* to do. Requirement 3 gets this right; it's also crucial to Requirement 2 and probably 1. Saying a "trust relationship MUST exist" is imprecise. Is it saying that the gateway is trusted -- i.e., authorized -- to make any SPIRITS request? For Requirement 3, who must authorize the request, and on what grounds? My answer would be that all users involved and the PSTN provider must authorize it -- the latter based on whether or not the customer has paid, the requestor to avoid false charges, and the subject of the request on privacy grounds. Requirement 4 shouldn't say "MUST secure the notification", since "secure" has many meanings. Say "encrypt" or "provide confidentiality". 3.2 should add "the subscriber MAY encrypt requests"; the gateway and the PSTN MUST accepted encrypted requests. 3.3 should mention the types of authorization needed, plus the ability to encrypt messages and to receive encrypted messages. 4.1: a shared secret over what security channel? 4.2: Delete mention of IPsec unless you can satisfy the requirements of draft-bellovin-useipsec. Intra- or inter-domain has nothing to do with it. sips: is good. "Autonomous system" is a routing concept that's irrelevant here. This document needs to mandate strong-enough security mechanisms for hostile environments; operators are always free to turn them off if their environment is safe. 4.4: S/MIME is end-to-end, and thus is stronger. There's no Security Considerations section. Such a section should address residual threats, as well as criteria for turning mechanisms on or off. The client needs some trustworthy way of learning the address of its SPIRITS gateway. This may be out of band; if so, say so. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book) _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed May 28 11:13:44 2003 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07658 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4SFD6R10068; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:13:06 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4SFCNR10055 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:12:23 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4SFC7Ha033825 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:12:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 65CB1443A5; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: spirits@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A289443A4 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ihmail.ih.lucent.com (ihmail.ih.lucent.com [135.1.218.70]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4SFC0Uf009926 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:12:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lucent.com (il0015vkg1.ih.lucent.com [135.185.173.147]) by ihmail.ih.lucent.com (8.11.6+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id h4SFBwx26776; Wed, 28 May 2003 10:11:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3ED4D1BD.3070005@lucent.com> From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Wireless Netwoks Group User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Bellovin Cc: SPIRITS list Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] draft-ietf-spirits-security-00.txt References: <20030527234148.AD3AD7B6C@berkshire.research.att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 10:11:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve: Thanks for the comments; much appreciated. Lots of feedback inline; I will rev the document once we have some more discussion on the information contained inline. It would be good to close it after the Vienna IETF. Steve Bellovin wrote: > > I've read through the security document; here are a few comments. > > > Section 2 says "interfaces in the PSTN ... are assumed to be secured > by the virtue of their being in a controlled network". That isn't an > acceptable line of reasoning. Fortunately, PSTN security is out of > scope for SPIRITS and the IETF; that sentence should be reworded to say > just that. Modified it. > 3.1: A lot turns on the question of "authorization" -- what does each > party have a *right* to do. Requirement 3 gets this right; it's also > crucial to Requirement 2 and probably 1. Saying a "trust relationship > MUST exist" is imprecise. Is it saying that the gateway is trusted -- > i.e., authorized -- to make any SPIRITS request? That hinges on who owns the SPIRITS gateway. If it is owned by the PSTN provider, then a trust relationship can be assumed between the SPIRITS gateway and the SPIRITS client. But if it is owned by a third party, then SPIRITS client must necessarily challenge the gateway. My view on who owns the gateway leans in the favor of the PSTN provider. Since the gateway can act as a gatekeeper for the SPIRITS client (and thus the entire PSTN), it probably makes sense for the PSTN provider to own it. The gateway can also act as a protocol translator, for example, translating a SIMPLE presence- related subscription for a tel URI to the detection points required by the SPIRITS protocol. Thus, all this appears to point to the gateway being owned by the PSTN provider. If that is the case, then is requirement 2 in Section 3.1 okay? Or should we add the caveat that a trust relationship MUST exist if the gateway is owned by the PSTN provider; otherwise, each request coming in MUST be challenged. > For Requirement 3, who must authorize the request, and on what > grounds? My answer would be that all users involved and the > PSTN provider must authorize it -- the latter based on whether or not > the customer has paid, the requestor to avoid false charges, and the > subject of the request on privacy grounds. There are actually 4 cases of authorizing the request in requirement 3: (1) the subscriber (SIP entity sending the SUBS) is who she says she is, (2) the subscriber (SIP entity sending the SUBS) has access to the resources that are being subscribed to, (3) the notifier (PSTN account holder) is in good standing with the PSTN provider (i.e. is not delinquent in bill payment), (4) the notifier (PSTN account holder) has authorized the subscriber (SIP entity sending the SUBS) access to the resources being subscribed to It would appear that only case 1 is solvable by IETF-related security standards. Cases 2-4 require OOB policies between the PSTN service provider and the PSTN account holder. As such, there would exist OOB means to do these kinds of authorization, including as you suggest, whether the customer has paid and analyzing the subject of the request. Please correct me if I am wrong in my analysis. > Requirement 4 shouldn't say "MUST secure the notification", > since "secure" has many meanings. Say "encrypt" or "provide > confidentiality". Done. Reworded as: Requirement 4: The PSTN service provider MUST provide confidentiality of the notification requests by encrypting them. > 3.2 should add "the subscriber MAY encrypt requests"; the gateway and > the PSTN MUST accepted encrypted requests. Will add. > 3.3 should mention the types of authorization needed, plus the ability > to encrypt messages and to receive encrypted messages. Will add. > 4.1: a shared secret over what security channel? I am open to suggestions -- two that come to mind are a password established over a https:// URI, or a password send in US mail. > 4.2: Delete mention of IPsec unless you can satisfy the requirements of > draft-bellovin-useipsec. Intra- or inter-domain has nothing to do with > it. sips: is good. OK; will take out IPSec. > "Autonomous system" is a routing concept that's irrelevant here. OK; will take it out. > This document needs to mandate strong-enough security > mechanisms for hostile environments; operators are always free to turn > them off if their environment is safe. > > 4.4: S/MIME is end-to-end, and thus is stronger. > > There's no Security Considerations section. Such a section should > address residual threats, as well as criteria for turning mechanisms on > or off. Will add one. > The client needs some trustworthy way of learning the address of its > SPIRITS gateway. This may be out of band; if so, say so. OK; will do. Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org} Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440 Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 0216 _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed May 28 18:15:14 2003 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27343 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 18:15:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4SMF1R12660; Wed, 28 May 2003 18:15:01 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4SGNWR10582 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 12:23:32 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4SGNHHa034445 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 12:23:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id E6073443A5; Wed, 28 May 2003 12:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: spirits@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB16443A4 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 12:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4SGNAc6068606 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 12:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop-8.dnv.wideopenwest.com (pop-8.dnv.wideopenwest.com [64.233.207.26]) by dusty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4SGOKER078355 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 12:24:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wideopenwest.com (webmail-1.wideopenwest.com [10.75.12.1]) by pop-8.dnv.wideopenwest.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h4SGN0406677; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:23:00 -0500 From: abrusilovsky@wideopenwest.com Reply-To: abrusilovsky@wideopenwest.com To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" , Steve Bellovin Cc: SPIRITS list Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] draft-ietf-spirits-security-00.txt X-Mailer: WebMAIL to Mail Gateway v3.0h Priority: normal Message-id: <3ed4e264.7a16.1804289383@wideopenwest.com> Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 10:23:00 -0600 Steve, Vijay, In the interest of timely completion of the prtocol I would like to propose to focus ONLY on the case where the GATEWAY is owned and managed by the PSTN operator. What do you think? Regards, Alec > > 3.1: A lot turns on the question of "authorization" -- > > what does each party have a *right* to do. Requirement > > 3 gets this right; it's also crucial to Requirement 2 > > and probably 1. Saying a "trust relationship MUST > exist" is imprecise. Is it saying that the gateway is > > trusted -- i.e., authorized -- to make any SPIRITS > request? > That hinges on who owns the SPIRITS gateway. If it is > owned by the PSTN provider, then a trust relationship can > be assumed between the SPIRITS gateway and the SPIRITS > client. But if it is owned by a third party, then SPIRITS > client must necessarily challenge the gateway. > > My view on who owns the gateway leans in the favor of the > PSTN provider. Since the gateway can act as a gatekeeper > for the SPIRITS client (and thus the entire PSTN), it > probably makes sense for the PSTN provider to own it. The > gateway can also act as a protocol translator, for > example, translating a SIMPLE presence- related > subscription for a tel URI to the detection points > required by the SPIRITS protocol. Thus, all this appears > to point to the gateway being owned by the PSTN provider. > If that is the case, then is requirement 2 in Section 3.1 > okay? Or should we add the caveat that a trust > relationship MUST exist if the gateway is owned by the > PSTN provider; otherwise, each request coming in MUST be > challenged. > > For Requirement 3, who must authorize the request, and > > on what grounds? My answer would be that all users > > involved and the PSTN provider must authorize it -- the > > latter based on whether or not the customer has paid, > > the requestor to avoid false charges, and the subject > of the request on privacy grounds. > There are actually 4 cases of authorizing the request in > requirement 3: > > (1) the subscriber (SIP entity sending the SUBS) is who > she says > she is, > (2) the subscriber (SIP entity sending the SUBS) has > access to > the resources that are being subscribed to, > (3) the notifier (PSTN account holder) is in good standing > with the PSTN provider (i.e. is not delinquent in > bill > payment), > (4) the notifier (PSTN account holder) has authorized the > subscriber (SIP entity sending the SUBS) access to > the > resources being subscribed to > > It would appear that only case 1 is solvable by > IETF-related security standards. Cases 2-4 require OOB > policies between the PSTN service provider and the PSTN > account holder. As such, there would exist OOB means to > do these kinds of authorization, including as you suggest, > whether the customer has paid and analyzing the subject of > the request. > Please correct me if I am wrong in my analysis. > > > Requirement 4 shouldn't say "MUST secure the > > notification", since "secure" has many meanings. Say > > "encrypt" or "provide confidentiality". > > Done. Reworded as: > > Requirement 4: The PSTN service provider MUST provide > confidentiality of the notification requests by > encrypting > them. > > > 3.2 should add "the subscriber MAY encrypt requests"; > > the gateway and the PSTN MUST accepted encrypted > requests. > Will add. > > > 3.3 should mention the types of authorization needed, > > plus the ability to encrypt messages and to receive > encrypted messages. > Will add. > > > 4.1: a shared secret over what security channel? > > I am open to suggestions -- two that come to mind are a > password established over a https:// URI, or a password > send in US mail. > > 4.2: Delete mention of IPsec unless you can satisfy the > > requirements of draft-bellovin-useipsec. Intra- or > > inter-domain has nothing to do with it. sips: is good. > > OK; will take out IPSec. > > > "Autonomous system" is a routing concept that's > irrelevant here. > OK; will take it out. > > > This document needs to mandate strong-enough security > > mechanisms for hostile environments; operators are > > always free to turn them off if their environment is > > safe. > > 4.4: S/MIME is end-to-end, and thus is stronger. > > > > There's no Security Considerations section. Such a > > section should address residual threats, as well as > > criteria for turning mechanisms on or off. > > Will add one. > > > The client needs some trustworthy way of learning the > > address of its SPIRITS gateway. This may be out of > band; if so, say so. > OK; will do. > > Thanks, > > - vijay > -- > Vijay K. Gurbani > vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org} Wireless > Networks Group/Internet Software and Services Lucent > Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm > 6G-440 Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 > 0216 > _______________________________________________ > SPIRITS mailing list > SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits > _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu May 29 10:29:24 2003 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05664 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:29:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TET1R18827; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:29:01 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TESIR18814 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:28:18 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TES2Ha043101 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:28:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 4759C443A5; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:27:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: spirits@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168D3443A4 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:27:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ihmail.ih.lucent.com (ihmail.ih.lucent.com [135.1.218.70]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TERrc6047435 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:27:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lucent.com (il0015vkg1.ih.lucent.com [135.185.173.147]) by ihmail.ih.lucent.com (8.11.6+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id h4TERpw23424; Thu, 29 May 2003 09:27:51 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3ED618E4.8010601@lucent.com> From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Wireless Netwoks Group User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: abrusilovsky@wideopenwest.com Cc: Steve Bellovin , SPIRITS list Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] draft-ietf-spirits-security-00.txt References: <3ed4e264.7a16.1804289383@wideopenwest.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 09:27:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit abrusilovsky@wideopenwest.com wrote: > Steve, Vijay, > > In the interest of timely completion of the prtocol I would > like to propose to focus ONLY on the case where the GATEWAY > is owned and managed by the PSTN operator. > What do you think? I don't have any problems with that; we can predominantly assume that model in the I-D. But to be safe, we should sprinkle in some verbiage that suggests some form of authentication/encryption if the gateway and SPIRITS client are not owned by the same entity. - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org} Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440 Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 0216 _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu May 29 10:34:19 2003 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05844 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:34:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TEY1R18895; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:34:01 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (ns1.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TEXkR18882 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:33:46 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TEXUHa043167 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:33:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id C2119443A5; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: spirits@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99677443A4 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TEXMc6047970 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:33:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from grimy.research.bell-labs.com (grimy.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.57]) by dusty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TEYVUx007222 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from linux.research.att.com (H-135-207-24-16.research.att.com [135.207.24.16]) by grimy.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TEXLcn028431 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:33:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bigmail.research.att.com (bigmail.research.att.com [135.207.30.101]) by linux.research.att.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h4TEYHEI005509; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:34:17 -0400 Received: from berkshire.research.att.com (raptor.research.att.com [135.207.23.32]) by bigmail.research.att.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TEWKV17410; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:32:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from research.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by berkshire.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF417B4D; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:32:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Cc: abrusilovsky@wideopenwest.com, SPIRITS list Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] draft-ietf-spirits-security-00.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Steven M. Bellovin" Message-Id: <20030529143219.CEF417B4D@berkshire.research.att.com> Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:32:19 -0400 In message <3ED618E4.8010601@lucent.com>, "Vijay K. Gurbani" writes: >abrusilovsky@wideopenwest.com wrote: >> Steve, Vijay, >> >> In the interest of timely completion of the prtocol I would >> like to propose to focus ONLY on the case where the GATEWAY >> is owned and managed by the PSTN operator. >> What do you think? > >I don't have any problems with that; we can predominantly >assume that model in the I-D. > >But to be safe, we should sprinkle in some verbiage that >suggests some form of authentication/encryption if the gateway >and SPIRITS client are not owned by the same entity. That's probably right, though I won't have time to go over the document again until a plane ride on Sunday. I think I'm going to have a few more comments to add, too. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book) _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu May 29 10:48:24 2003 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06183 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:48:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TEm1R19075; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:48:01 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (ns1.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TEl6R19045 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:47:06 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TEkoHa043348 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:46:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 67153443A5; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: spirits@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E292443A4 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ihmail.ih.lucent.com (ihmail.ih.lucent.com [135.1.218.70]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TEkgc6049041 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:46:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lucent.com (il0015vkg1.ih.lucent.com [135.185.173.147]) by ihmail.ih.lucent.com (8.11.6+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id h4TEkew12455; Thu, 29 May 2003 09:46:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3ED61D4C.109@lucent.com> From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Wireless Netwoks Group User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Steven M. Bellovin" Cc: abrusilovsky@wideopenwest.com, SPIRITS list Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] draft-ietf-spirits-security-00.txt References: <20030529143219.CEF417B4D@berkshire.research.att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 09:46:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > That's probably right, though I won't have time to go over the document > again until a plane ride on Sunday. I think I'm going to have a few > more comments to add, too. Steve: Please send me your comments whenever you are ready. I have started to rev the I-D based on the discussions thus far and can incorporate your additional comments as they appear. Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org} Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440 Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 0216 _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu May 29 12:50:19 2003 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09840 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 12:50:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TGo2R20013; Thu, 29 May 2003 12:50:02 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (ns1.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TGnZR19991 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 12:49:35 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TGnJHa044874 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 12:49:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 77940443A5; Thu, 29 May 2003 12:49:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: spirits@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5160F443A4 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 12:49:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from homail.ho.lucent.com (homail.ho.lucent.com [135.17.192.10]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TGnCUf008262 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 12:49:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bell-labs.com by homail.ho.lucent.com (8.11.6+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id h4TGn8P29016; Thu, 29 May 2003 12:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3ED639DF.BB477BF2@bell-labs.com> From: Igor Faynberg Reply-To: faynberg@bell-labs.com Organization: Lucent Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD EMS-1.5 (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,el MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Cc: abrusilovsky@wideopenwest.com, Steve Bellovin , SPIRITS list Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] draft-ietf-spirits-security-00.txt References: <3ed4e264.7a16.1804289383@wideopenwest.com> <3ED618E4.8010601@lucent.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:48:31 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As someone who is so old as to remember the history, I will cast my vote in support of Alec's intervention. This "gateway" thing, as far as I am concerned, has been an abomination in the first place, which was first created in PINT as a compromise between the ITU and IETF parties to create a no man's land, sort of like a minefield along the border between Hungary and Yugoslavia in the time of the Iron Curtain. (It has been removed now.) The real model has always been that the communications are maintained end-to-end between an Internet host and the SCF. But then, by no means, would I want to disturb previous agreements. They are documented, and they are--to the best of my knowledge--architecturally sound. This is why I believe that for all practical reasons we should assume that the gateway is in the PSTN. It is much better to have less text than more, especially when the "more" part relates to an irrelevant scenario never to be implemented. Igor "Vijay K. Gurbani" wrote: > > abrusilovsky@wideopenwest.com wrote: > > Steve, Vijay, > > > > In the interest of timely completion of the prtocol I would > > like to propose to focus ONLY on the case where the GATEWAY > > is owned and managed by the PSTN operator. > > What do you think? > > I don't have any problems with that; we can predominantly > assume that model in the I-D. > > But to be safe, we should sprinkle in some verbiage that > suggests some form of authentication/encryption if the gateway > and SPIRITS client are not owned by the same entity. > > - vijay > -- > Vijay K. Gurbani vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org} > Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services > Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440 > Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 0216 > > _______________________________________________ > SPIRITS mailing list > SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu May 29 13:06:21 2003 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10304 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 13:06:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TH61R20134; Thu, 29 May 2003 13:06:01 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TH5pR20121 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 13:05:51 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TH5aHa045073 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 13:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 33713443A5; Thu, 29 May 2003 13:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: spirits@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080E0443A4 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 13:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ihmail.ih.lucent.com (ihmail.ih.lucent.com [135.1.218.70]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TH5Rc6063309 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 13:05:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lucent.com (il0015vkg1.ih.lucent.com [135.185.173.147]) by ihmail.ih.lucent.com (8.11.6+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id h4TH5Pw27331; Thu, 29 May 2003 12:05:25 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3ED63DD1.5090407@lucent.com> From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Wireless Netwoks Group User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: faynberg@bell-labs.com Cc: abrusilovsky@wideopenwest.com, Steve Bellovin , SPIRITS list Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] draft-ietf-spirits-security-00.txt References: <3ed4e264.7a16.1804289383@wideopenwest.com> <3ED618E4.8010601@lucent.com> <3ED639DF.BB477BF2@bell-labs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:05:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Igor Faynberg wrote: [...] > This is why I believe that for all practical reasons we should assume > that the gateway is in the PSTN. It is much better to have less text > than more, especially when the "more" part relates to an > irrelevant scenario never to be implemented. Igor: I agree that for all practical reasons, the gateway is in the PSTN (any way you slice and dice it, you will come out to the same conclusion). We can leave it at that. Regarding the usuability of the gateway, I am now convinced that unlike PINT, where its usability was limited, in SPIRITS it has a useful place. Initially, I viewed the gateway as merely a proxy, but on talking to others, it seems that there is a useful role for the gateway in SPIRITS. Consider for instance commercial IM UAs (like MSN Messenger, which does speak SIP) or others based on SIMPLE. It is highly unlikely that these UAs will concern themselves with subscribing to IN DPs in order to create a presence-based subscription for a tel URI. Chances are that they will simply use the mechanisms outlined in to subscribe for presence on a PSTN line. The gateway can actually step in at this time and accept a plain SIMPLE presence subscription and turn it into the various DPs that are available (and implemented) by the SCF it is working with. Thus, some actual form of protocol conversion can be done by the gateway; in this case, turning vanilla presence documents into a type acceptable by the SCF. Does that make sense? Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org} Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440 Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 0216 _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits From spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu May 29 14:10:54 2003 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12394 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 14:10:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TIA6R20594; Thu, 29 May 2003 14:10:06 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (ns1.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TI9UR20572 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 14:09:30 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TI9EHa045654 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 14:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 871F0443A5; Thu, 29 May 2003 14:09:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: spirits@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E315443A4 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 14:09:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from homail.ho.lucent.com (homail.ho.lucent.com [135.17.192.10]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4TI97c6068532 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 14:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bell-labs.com by homail.ho.lucent.com (8.11.6+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id h4TI94P01709; Thu, 29 May 2003 14:09:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3ED64C9A.D8F29240@bell-labs.com> From: Igor Faynberg Reply-To: faynberg@bell-labs.com Organization: Lucent Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD EMS-1.5 (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,el MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Cc: abrusilovsky@wideopenwest.com, Steve Bellovin , SPIRITS list Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] draft-ietf-spirits-security-00.txt References: <3ed4e264.7a16.1804289383@wideopenwest.com> <3ED618E4.8010601@lucent.com> <3ED639DF.BB477BF2@bell-labs.com> <3ED63DD1.5090407@lucent.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: spirits-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: spirits@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 14:08:26 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Vijay K. Gurbani" wrote: > >... > Regarding the usuability of the gateway, I am now convinced that > unlike PINT, where its usability was limited, in SPIRITS it has > a useful place. Initially, I viewed the gateway as merely a > proxy, but on talking to others, it seems that there is a useful > role for the gateway in SPIRITS. >... No, no, no! SPIRITS and PINT are the same thing, or more precisely, they are mirror images of each other. Besides, no SPIRITS service (except maybe ICW) that can really be implemented without what constitues a PINT service, nor could PINT conference calling be implemented without SPIRITS. The division between PINT and SPIRITS was division of work between two WGs. If any solution violates the architectural principles then I would be inclined to say that the solution is wrong, and we must find the one that violates nothing. (Because the alternative would be to restart the architectural work from the beginning, which I think is unwarranted.) This is not to say that a proxy may not be outside of the PSTN. Of course it may (and has to)! But it should not have a function of the SPIRITS gateway then. Igor _______________________________________________ SPIRITS mailing list SPIRITS@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits