Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (stir) - IETF 101 - London 22 March 2018 - 1030-1200 - Viscount Co-chairs: Russ Housley and Brian Rosen (substitute for Robert Sparks) Note taker: Christer Holmberg Jabber scribe: Matt Miller Meetecho: https://play.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/?session=IETF101-STIR-20180322-0930 Topic: PASSporT Extension for Resource-Priority Authorization Presenter: Martin Dolly Draft: draft-ietf-stir-rph-03 An issue whether ppt values should be quoted or not. Both ways appear in documents, and we should agree on one way. See further discussion later in this meeting on 'PASSporT Extension for Divert'. NEXT STEP: Submit new version of the Internet-Draft. Topic: PASSporT Extension for SHAKEN Presenter: Chris Wendt Draft: draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-01 Indicated that some minor changes are still to be done, but otherwise the document is ready to be moved forwarded. Nobody objected to moving the document forward. NEXT STEP: Submit new version of the Internet-Draft. Topic: PASSporT Extension for Divert Presenter: Jon Peterson Draft: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-02 ISSUE: It was suggested to allow Identity in 3xx responses, which the original UAC could optionally use in subsequent requests. OUTCOME: Not controversial; no one objected. It does have some potentially complex interactions with nesting and multiple Identity headers, which will require careful documentation. ISSUE: It was discussed on whether we should deprecate the usage of nested claims for the in-band solution. DISCUSSION: The total size of an INVITE request is not a problem; the size will be large even without Identity header fields. A large size of a single header field can cause problems. DISCUSSION: We should use the same mechanism for in-band and out-of-band. Nesting is needed for out-of-band. DISCUSSION: If nesting is used, it needs to be clear how nesting is done when there are multiple incoming Identity header fields. OUTCOME: Nesting will stay. ISSUE: Ordering for Identity header fields in a SIP message when multiple header fields are included. OUTCOME: No need to define order of Identity header fields. ISSUE: Ordering for claims within a PASSporT as required by RFC 8225. OUTCOME: No need to define anything additional, as RFC 8225 already defines how to order the claims as part of the serialisation. ISSUE: Should 'opt' be independent of 'div' to allow nesting with other PASSporT extensions? OUTCOME: Will allow 'opt' with other extensions if needed in future. ISSUE: Should ppt values be quoted or not? OUTCOME: Quoting is mandatory. NEXT STEP: Submit new version of the Internet-Draft. WG Last Call will follow shortly after the next once the next version of the Internet-Draft has been submitted. More reviewers are needed. Topic: Out-Of-Band (OOB) Presenter: Jon Peterson Draft: draft-ietf-stir-oob-02 DISCUSSION: More generic guidance for validating PASSportT against calls without SIP. DISCUSSION: Mocked up a REST interface for a CPS. Initial work; more work is needed. DISCUSSION: There a need to specify at least one CPS discovery mechanism, realising that service discovery in general is a complex and much-studied topic. NEXT STEP: Work will continue. Topic: Registry for Country-Specific STIR Root Certificates Presenter: Eric Burger (remote) Draft: draft-burger-stir-iana-cert-00 DISCUSSION: There was much concern about the suggestion. It would come with a big liability and huge responsibility on IANA. It was also unclear what the Expert Reviewer is expected to do. DISCUSSION: If such registry is to be created, it could be done by ITU-T, for example. While the problem might be clear, it is not within the expertise of IETF or IANA. DISCUSSION: Even if such a registry exists, people will not rely on the information without doing some vetting of their own. NEXT STEP: No decision. Topic: Connected Identity for STIR Presenter: Jon Peterson Draft: draft-peterson-stir-rfc4916-update-00 DISCUSSION: Described as "STIR backwards". Send an UPDATE request in the backwards direction while the call is being established. NEXT STEP: No decision; discussions will continue. Topic: Callback Presenter: Jonathan Rosenberg Draft: draft-rosenberg-stir-callback-00 DISCUSSION: The mechanism should be seen as a complement to RFC 8226. DISCUSSION: The callback INVITE will often reach a PSTN gateway that does not support the Require header field value, which would trigger a call establishment in the PSTN network. DISCUSSION: It was indicated that perhaps OOB could be used. NEXT STEP: No decision. Topic: SIPcoin Presenter: Jonathan Rosenberg Draft: draft-rosenberg-stir-sipcoin-00 DISCUSSION: Short presentation of the mechanism. It was clarified that a blockchain is not needed. An entity will only do work before the call, and then show proof of the work when establishing a call. DISCUSSION: Interested parties were invited to the lunch talk where further discussions will take place. NEXT STEP: No decision.