Requirements for Consent-Based Communications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-sipping-consent-reqs-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Sam Hartman |
2006-01-26
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2006-01-25
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2006-01-25
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2006-01-25
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2006-01-24
|
04 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Allison Mankin |
2006-01-18
|
04 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] Revision -04, which just came out, addressed the Comments from Elwyn Davies (GEN-ART) and the Discuss issues of Sam Hartman. The editor worked … [Ballot comment] Revision -04, which just came out, addressed the Comments from Elwyn Davies (GEN-ART) and the Discuss issues of Sam Hartman. The editor worked out the revisions with Elwyn and Sam. Sam just cleared. Checking with that WG is fine. |
2006-01-18
|
04 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] Revision -04, which just came out, addressed the Comments from Elwyn Davies (GEN-ART) and the Discuss issues of Sam Hartman. Sam has just … [Ballot comment] Revision -04, which just came out, addressed the Comments from Elwyn Davies (GEN-ART) and the Discuss issues of Sam Hartman. Sam has just cleared. |
2006-01-18
|
04 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] Revision -04 addressed the comments from Elwyn Davies (GEN-ART) and the Discuss issues of Sam Hartman (Sam cleared just now). |
2006-01-18
|
04 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sam Hartman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Sam Hartman |
2006-01-18
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-consent-reqs-04.txt |
2006-01-06
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2006-01-06
|
04 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-01-05 |
2006-01-05
|
04 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot discuss] As described in section 2, the spam problem does not need this solution. There's nothing stopping the UA from rejecting an invite without … [Ballot discuss] As described in section 2, the spam problem does not need this solution. There's nothing stopping the UA from rejecting an invite without involvig the user or failing to display a message. The concern about DOS and excessive network traffic does seem to mandate this solution, but the concerns about spam need to be restated in such a way that they actually motivate the requirements. I also have a question about section 3. Is the intent that all SIP communications in the future require consent or is this only sometimes applied? |
2006-01-05
|
04 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
2006-01-05
|
04 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-01-05
|
04 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
2006-01-04
|
04 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2006-01-04
|
04 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2006-01-04
|
04 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
2006-01-04
|
04 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2006-01-03
|
04 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2006-01-03
|
04 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] I think that all the points made in the following Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies are of interest, especially the point that consents … [Ballot comment] I think that all the points made in the following Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies are of interest, especially the point that consents should not themselves be available as a DOS mechanism. ---------- - How much knowledge of the network and relay state does a given user/user agent need to install consents on all relevant relays? Caveat: I am not a SIP expert so I may have some misunderstandings here. As I understand it, a user device will register for a session with a given relay/proxy that it knows about. In the context of REQ 6, how is the device to know that the relevant consents are installed on this relay as the device might have a choice of relays? - The document doesn't put any requirements on the transition to the consent based system. If I understand correctly the introduction of the consent based system would effectively reverse the default assumption from (e.g.) 'INVITE delivered by default' to 'INVITE not delivered by default'. Introducing this change will be challenging, both in terms of how to handle existing users and providing an effective initial configuration for new users. - The document doesn't mention the need for strict authorization of messages setting up or revoking consent permissions which I believe is essential. This should probably be in the context of a discussion of how to avoid the consent mechanism itself becoming the focus of DoS attacks, and then some requirements stemming from this. This might also consider whether these messages *must* originate from the user/user agent to which the permission applies or whether third parties with appropriate authorization can provide the permissions. - In the context of REQ 8 (need for future proofing), I suspect that a requirement for an 'emergency override' needs to be provided for so that in future suitably authorized requests could ignore a prior consent denial. - Some thought needs to be given to requirements on logging of requests which are rejected as a result of non-consent. This may be relevant to legal requirements on interception of communication and it might also be interesting for users to be able to examine the log of users who tried to call them but were rejected - this is particularly relevant as the proposal defaults to rejecting calls for which explicit consent has not been given. Minor points: REQ 5: If a user revokes permission for a user with whom a call is pending or in progress, should this have the effect of terminating the call? REQ 6: This should also apply to grants: I think this is saying that all grant and revoke messages should be idempotent. REQ 8: '...shall work for all .. future SIP methods': I know what is meant but this is impossible to guarantee and probably an undesirable constraint on future developments. How about something like 'should be designed, so far as is possible, to work with any future SIP methods and place minimal constraints on such methods.' Editorial nit: The term 'screen pop' used twice in s2 is very colloquial. I would suggest 'visual alert' instead. How about replacing: For INVITE requests, this usually involves "ringing the phone", or creating a screen pop. with For INVITE requests, this usually involves delivering an audible alert (e.g., "ringing the phone"), or a visual alert (e.g., creating a screen pop-up window). |
2006-01-03
|
04 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
2006-01-01
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2005-12-27
|
04 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Allison Mankin |
2005-12-27
|
04 | Allison Mankin | Ballot has been issued by Allison Mankin |
2005-12-27
|
04 | Allison Mankin | Created "Approve" ballot |
2005-12-27
|
04 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2005-12-27
|
04 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2005-12-27
|
04 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2005-12-26
|
04 | Allison Mankin | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-01-05 by Allison Mankin |
2005-12-26
|
04 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Allison Mankin |
2005-12-26
|
04 | Allison Mankin | [Note]: 'PROTO shepherd Rohan Mahy rohan@ekabal.com' added by Allison Mankin |
2005-12-19
|
04 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Allison Mankin |
2005-12-12
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-consent-reqs-03.txt |
2005-12-11
|
04 | Allison Mankin | The framework is going to await a separate mechanisms document which comes as late as March. |
2005-12-11
|
04 | Allison Mankin | Draft Added by Allison Mankin in state Publication Requested |
2005-11-30
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-consent-reqs-02.txt |
2005-07-20
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-consent-reqs-01.txt |
2004-10-19
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-consent-reqs-00.txt |