1 / 7

IETF 74 SIPPING WG meeting

draft-elwell-sip-e2e-identity-important-03. IETF 74 SIPPING WG meeting. What are we trying to achieve?. The ability for a participant in a communication to know with a high degree of certainty who the other party (caller or callee) is

abiba
Télécharger la présentation

IETF 74 SIPPING WG meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. draft-elwell-sip-e2e-identity-important-03 IETF 74 SIPPING WG meeting

  2. What are we trying to achieve? • The ability for a participant in a communication to know with a high degree of certainty who the other party (caller or callee) is • That information (e.g., voice, text, video) is being sent to / received from that other party • “e2e authenticated identification” • To work in a large number of practical deployments

  3. What is the problem that is preventing this? • Intermediate B2BUAs modify signed parts of request • Modify SDP for media steering • Modify call-ID, contact, etc for topology hiding • Intermediate B2BUAs modify E.164-based SIP URIs • Canonicalization • Both practices break e2e authenticated identification as currently defined

  4. It’s just a flesh wound! Identity

  5. Solution requirements? • Tolerance of intermediate domains changing IP address and port in SDP (e.g., for media steering)? • Yes? • Tolerance of intermediate domains changing Contact (addr-spec), Call-Id (call-id) and CSeq (digit) header fields (e.g., for topology hiding)? • Probably? • Tolerance of intermediate domains changing domain part of From and To header field E.164-based URIs? • Probably? • Tolerance of intermediate domains changing user part of From and To header field URIs? • No?

  6. Should we be working in this problem space? • If yes, what are the next steps?

More Related