1 / 10

draft-watson-sipping-nai-reqs

draft-watson-sipping-nai-reqs. Short term requirements for Network Asserted Identity. Network Asserted Identity Motivation. Two motivations: Network intermediaries (proxies or ‘CSCFs’ in 3GPP) need a reliable authenticated identity of the caller

dunne
Télécharger la présentation

draft-watson-sipping-nai-reqs

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-watson-sipping-nai-reqs Short term requirements for Network Asserted Identity

  2. Network Asserted Identity Motivation • Two motivations: • Network intermediaries (proxies or ‘CSCFs’ in 3GPP) need a reliable authenticated identity of the caller • Don’t want to or can’t repeat SIP Digest authentication with every intermediary • User Agent will find a more reliable user identification useful, if UA cannot Authenticate other UA directly

  3. Short Term Applicability • Immediate requirement is for a mechanism which works within a ‘Trust Domain’ • Nodes in a Trust Domain are known (by the human network designers) to obey the Network Asserted Identity specifications (‘Spec(T)’ where T is the Trust Domain , AT => A obeys Spec(T)) • A given node in the Trust Domain knows (by configuration) about some other nodes in the domain • Nodes in the domain are securely interconnected

  4. Terminology • Node A is ‘trusted by’ Node B iff: • Node B ‘knows’ (by configuration) that Node A is in the Trust Domain, and • There is a secure connection between Node A and Node B (integrity, confidentiality) • Symmetrical within network - A trusts B iff B trusts A (this is just for simplicity) • A Proxy can be ‘trusted by’ a UA (asymmetrical)

  5. Implications of Trust Domain model • If A trusts B then A can ‘safely’ pass (private) NAI to B, because: • Connection to B is secure • A knows that B will ‘follow the rules in Spec(T)’ i.e. the (private) NAI will not be passed to nodes outside the domain • If B trusts A then B can ‘safely’ use NAI received from B, because • Connection from A is secure • B knows that A has ‘followed the rules in Spec(T)’ i.e. the NAI can be relied on

  6. Out of scope • How to identify privacy requirements • Privacy services required (+ user/subscriber debate etc.) • Contents/meaning of From: field

  7. Requirements • NAI1: generate NAI and pass to ‘trusted’ nodes • NAI2: A sends NAI to B for case A does not trust B, but B does trust A NAI received from a node you do not trust is garbage – DISCARD!

  8. Requirement not addressed • User Agent providing ‘hints’ to network entity to help generate NAI • E.g. User Agent’s ‘preferred’ NAI – where it has several that would be equally valid from the network’s point of view

  9. Additional Issues • How many NAIs ? • Possibility of a user with both a SIP URI and a TEL URI ? • NAI is ‘Network Asserted version of From:’ – what about Network Asserted version of Reply-To, Call-Info etc. etc. • Parties with NAI ? • Sender of message (Request or response) • Privacy of NAI • User must indicate privacy preference for NAI. • Privacy: header ? Timing ?

  10. Items for decision • Requirements to WG item ? • Solution discussion to SIP list ? • Revision of Remote-Party-ID ? OR • New draft (Cullen’s Network-Asserted-ID ?) • To WG item after list discussion ? • Move forward to 3GPP timescale ? • ‘Hints’ requirement

More Related