Subject: RE: [Megaco] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-jacobs-signaling-security-requi rements-00.tx t

From: "Kevin Boyle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 16:06:03 -0500

Wouldn't this be an IPSec problem, and not a Megaco problem?  Why wouldn't a
fix for IPSec with NATs be the appropriate way to tackle this?

Of course, I haven't had a chance to read the document yet, so this is a gut
reaction.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B602:EXCH] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:15 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [Megaco] FW: I-D
ACTION:draft-jacobs-signaling-security-requirements-00.tx t

I believe that when you get to the Megaco part the authors are saying IPSEC
isn't good enough because it doesn't work through xxxxxxxx NATs.  Do people
feel we need to revisit Megaco security?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:07 AM
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-jacobs-signaling-security-requirements-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title		: MGCP, MEGACO, and SIP VoIP Signaling Protocol
Security
                          Requirements
	Author(s)	: S. Jacobs, E. Nielsen
	Filename	:
draft-jacobs-signaling-security-requirements-00.txt
	Pages		: 31
	Date		: 2002-11-4
	
This document specifies the requirements that the MGCP,
MEGACO, and SIP VoIP Signaling Protocols must satisfy in
order to meet the needs for VoIP deployment in carrier class and large
geographically distributed organization networks. These requirements were
developed with a specific focus on network address translation (NAT),
network through application layer packet filtering, signaling across
multiple trust domains, and redundancy of call/controllers, media gateways,
proxies and registrars.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jacobs-signaling-security-requirem
ents-00.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type
"cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-jacobs-signaling-security-requirements-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE
/internet-drafts/draft-jacobs-signaling-security-requirements-00.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft. _______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: "Balasubramanian Pitchandi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 18:45:24 -0500

I agree with Kevin. Signaling Security is not just a Megaco problem but
rather a wider problem which would be better addressed by IPSec with the
help of RSIP and/or NAT like protocols.

The authors do provide a framework for the signaling security which
would be a good start to work on to evolve a common strategy among
different VoIP signaling protocols.

Just curious: Is this draft a work item of IPSec WG?
 
Thanks,
Bala

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Kevin Boyle
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:06 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [Megaco] FW: I-D
ACTION:draft-jacobs-signaling-security-requirements-00.tx t

Wouldn't this be an IPSec problem, and not a Megaco problem?  Why
wouldn't a
fix for IPSec with NATs be the appropriate way to tackle this?

Of course, I haven't had a chance to read the document yet, so this is a
gut
reaction.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B602:EXCH] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:15 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [Megaco] FW: I-D

I believe that when you get to the Megaco part the authors are saying
IPSEC
isn't good enough because it doesn't work through xxxxxxxx NATs.  Do
people
feel we need to revisit Megaco security?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:07 AM
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-jacobs-signaling-security-requirements-00.txt

	
This document specifies the requirements that the MGCP,
MEGACO, and SIP VoIP Signaling Protocols must satisfy in
order to meet the needs for VoIP deployment in carrier class and large
geographically distributed organization networks. These requirements
were
developed with a specific focus on network address translation (NAT),
network through application layer packet filtering, signaling across
multiple trust domains, and redundancy of call/controllers, media
gateways,
proxies and registrars.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jacobs-signaling-security-requ
irem
ents-00.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the
message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type
"cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-jacobs-signaling-security-requirements-00.txt".

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE
	
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail
readers

---

From: "Balasubramanian Pitchandi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 18:45:24 -0500

Thanks,
Bala

-----Original Message-----

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:07 AM
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-jacobs-signaling-security-requirements-00.txt

	

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 11:13:11 +1100

G'Day Tom,

I don't think this is a general MEgaco issue, from what I read this draft only
effect Megaco when it is used in an IP Phone scenario. Therefore I think this is
relevant to the work on the IPPhone Profile, perhaps this profile needs to be
revisited with these security requirements in mind??

Regards, Christian

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 11:13:11 +1100

G'Day Tom,

Regards, Christian