Subject: [stir] Draft agenda: STIR @ IETF90

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:15:48 -0500

We requested 2 hrs, and ended up with 2.5.
I don't think we need the extra .5, so this draft is still 120 minutes:

5m Administrivia (chairs)
5m Update on status of problem-statement and threats (chairs)
90m draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis (Jon Peterson)
20m Credentials Roadmap (Sean Turner)

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:45:00 -0400

Is there any more information on what "credentials roadmap" is planning on ?

-----Original Message-----
From: stir [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 1:16 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [stir] Draft agenda: STIR @ IETF90

5m Administrivia (chairs)
5m Update on status of problem-statement and threats (chairs) 90m
draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis (Jon Peterson) 20m Credentials Roadmap (Sean
Turner)

_______________________________________________
stir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir

---

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:29:20 +0000

We just want to have a discussion in the room about the way forward - specifying one credential solution or many, whether or not we want a reqs doc, those sorts of questions. We're not seeking consensus on a solution yet, if that's the concern.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 16, 2014, at 7:45 AM, "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 18:00:49 -0400

Well I wouldn't mind a serious hum or show of hands on a direction/solution
consensus.  For what it's worth I would certainly be willing to support a
full 509 based solution using ECC (lower key size).  We should not preclude
options for the E.164 namespace. 

I'm well aware of how much work that would entail based on the SIDR
experience.  CRL etc...

The contentious issue is a TN basis vs block and I certainly think over time
TN is the way to go for obvious reasons.  That said we may not have much
choice here.

 We may only be able to recommend preferred options vs a single solution
since the actual management of the namespace is clearly a nation state issue
and beyond our control but what we recommend would have substantial weight
among the regulators and as we have seen the regulators are getting anxious.

My modest view is that we probably don't need requirements.  An Options
document and then we have to figure out, if 509, is the 'preferred' solution
how the real profile/CRL gets done and where. "We recommend A but you could
do B,C,D." 

STIR is not a "silver bullet". We all know that by this point.  

-----Original Message-----
From: stir [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Peterson, Jon
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 12:29 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [stir] Draft agenda: STIR @ IETF90

We just want to have a discussion in the room about the way forward -
specifying one credential solution or many, whether or not we want a reqs
doc, those sorts of questions. We're not seeking consensus on a solution
yet, if that's the concern.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

Sent from my iPad