 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At 04:11 PM 7/17/2008, Richard Barnes wrote:
I think where Hannes was going is that this document does make a meaningful change to the SIP presence system. It does so by including a new type of information, which could introduce different privacy risks.This extension is analogous to the transition between PIDF and PIDF-LO: You're still just putting a PIDF in SUB/NOT. There are two separate RFCs to deal with that extension (3693/3694). So even though you're just adding something to a PIDF (or PIDF-LO), there might still be cause for some security and privacy discussions.
ok, so let me get this straight - and this goes directly to the firm comment you made on the WiMAX call Monday -- you claimed then that every single change in PIDF forces PIDF-LO to go back through the gauntlet of re-qualifying SIP as a "Using Protocol". Are you serious?
Where's the requirement for the snapshot of PIDF information that marks the point in time that Presence achieved this status (as a "Using Protocol"), with the understanding that for EVERY single extension to Presence from that moment forward it rescinds that status until some magical requalification takes place (from a new snapshot of Presence)?
You're proposing that any extension to PIDF, regardless of what SIP or SIPPING or SIMPLE does int he future - MUST require a new re-qualification of SIP to carry this PIDF as a message body.
How many others on this list agree with this undertaking?I think we're making this out to be a bigger deal than it really is. I think the "sniff test" should be all that's required, with things that smell odd getting a more thorough look at.
James
--Richard James M. Polk wrote:At 02:03 PM 7/17/2008, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:Hannes PS: You write "poses zero new security or privacy concerns relative to Conveyance." Let me give you something to think about: When you change one protocol name against another one then do you think that the fundamental privacy & security aspects are suddenly different?"one protocol against another" huh? Conveyance already has PIDF-LO within SIP SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY.There is nothing new in either of these IDs relative putting a PIDF-LO in SUBSCRIBE or NOTIFY.What do you see that's fundamentally different? _______________________________________________ Geopriv mailing list Geopriv at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________ Geopriv mailing list Geopriv at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv