In trying to address this issue for the last year or more, it is quite clear that it is difficult to discuss in a structured way. However, I would suggest the following order of discussion: - What does a user want to know about the identity of a communication partner, the authenticity of that identity and the security state of the communication? - How important is end-to-end, as opposed to hop-by-hop security (including authenticated identity)? - What do we have in our toolkit at present to meet these user expectations? - What are the barriers to deploying identity solutions based on these tools, and what are the root causes of these barriers? - What mechanisms could be devised for overcoming these deployment difficulties, and what are the pros and cons of each? - What are the additional problems arising from the use of E.164-based URIs, and are there mechanisms that could solve these problems? - What are the additional problems arising from PSTN interworking, and are there mechanisms that could solve these problems?
There are already some drafts that address one or more of these points. But if we were to publish a structure to the discussion in advance, we could try to solicit drafts addressing particular points. John > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Sent: 31 October 2008 17:19 > To: SIP IETF > Subject: [Sip] Interim meeting in Malta > > (As WG chair) > > The SIP and SIPPING chairs have agreed (with the support of > the AD) that > both SIP and SIPPING WGs will meet in Malta at the proposed interim > meeting 20th - 22nd January 2009. There are still arrangements to be > made as to precise dates and time allocation, but this should give you > enough time to go ahead and reserve flights at the cheapest rates. > > You can see information here about the interim which will be > updated as > it developes. > > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/2009/jan-large-interim/ > > For SIP, what we will be looking for is agenda items that need some > considerable in depth discussion with large blocks of time, > rather than > those that require 15 minute slots to make one decision. If > you believe > there is a subject area that would benefit from such detailed > discussion > (yours draft or someone elses), then please send us an email > before the > start of IETF#73, so that we can float a tentative agenda at > the SIP WG > meeting there. > > I strongly suspect we may have an identity discussion at the interim > meeting, but would appreciate ideas on the best way of moving > forward on > this subject. > > All decisions of the interim meeting will of course be taken > to the list > in some form or other. > > regards > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
