Subject: [Sipping] IETF Standardization related to SPIT

From: "Saverio Niccolini" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:14:33 +0100

Dear all,

In order to start a discussion on the question if there is a need for IETF 
standards related to SPIT prevention, we have submitted an Internet draft
that tries to identify the need for standards on a very high level. Please
find it at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-niccolini-sipping-spitstop-00.txt

We hope to refine this work and elaborate requirements for SPIT-related
standards in the next months and we would like to do it together with you.

For discussing the general need for standards we set up the spitstop mailing
list:

https://listserv.netlab.nec.de/mailman/listinfo/spitstop

You are very welcome to join this list and to invite other interested people
to do so.

I hope this topic is interesting to you and I look forward to vivid and
fruitful discussions with you.

Best regards,

  Saverio Niccolini

============================================================
Dr. Saverio Niccolini
Senior Research Staff Member
Network Laboratories, NEC Europe Ltd.
Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg
Tel.     +49 (0)6221 4342-118
Fax:     +49 (0)6221 4342-155
e-mail:  [email-masked]
============================================================

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:47:11 +0100

Dear all,

One of the goals of discussions on the spitstop mailing list
would be having a BoF on SPIT-related issues at IETF#69 in Chicago.

Thanks,

    Juergen

-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]       Tel: +49 6221 4342-115
NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 4342-155
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:59:02 -0500

From: "Saverio Niccolini" <[email-masked]>

It seems like this I-D presupposes a particular model of how SPIT
prevention will be implemented, but it does not make explicit what
that model is.  Given that SPIT prevention has not yet been
implemented anywhere, shouldn't we first be discussing the model and
whether it suffices for SPIT prevention before attempting to
standardize the details of how the components implied by the model
will communicate?

Dale

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:39:20 +0100

Hi Dale,

> standardize the details of how the components implied by the model

We have a running system that we use for testing purposes in our office
and demonstrated at ITU Telecom 06 in Hong Kong.

Of course we had this system in the back of our heads when writing the draft.
But we do not think that our way is the only way to build a SPIT prevention
system.  We tried to be rather generic in the draft and start this discussion
in order to also include other views and alternative systems - maybe better
ones than ours ;-)

Thanks,

    Juergen

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:21:08 -0500

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>

   We have a running system that we use for testing purposes in our
   office and demonstrated at ITU Telecom 06 in Hong Kong.

Nice!

   Of course we had this system in the back of our heads when writing
   the draft.  But we do not think that our way is the only way to
   build a SPIT prevention system.  We tried to be rather generic in
   the draft and start this discussion in order to also include other
   views and alternative systems - maybe better ones than ours ;-)

I don't want to seem to be a complainer, but when I read the draft, it
was clear to me that you had already made many architecture decisions
about the system, it did not seem very generic to me.

Dale

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:08:13 +0100

Hi Dale,

> about the system, it did not seem very generic to me.

I think you're right.  But that's why we want to have a public discussion
on the general topic.  We do not insist on the architectural assumptions
made in our draft but rather look forward to improve (or radically change)
them based on feedback from the community.  Just for starting the
discussion we had to present something: our view.

Thanks,

    Juergen