Subject: RE: [Sip] Comment, SIP Privacy draft

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:31:12 -0600

Batching up a few mails from Flemming, trying to catch up.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Flemming Andreasen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 6:47 AM
> To: Peterson, Jon
> Cc: 'William Marshall'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Comment, SIP Privacy draft
> 

> 
> You are concerned about somebody doing something the draft does not
define, and
> in fact explicitly states it is not intended for. You have not provided
any
> technical problems with this, but are only concerned with the potential
for
> misuse. There is no point in either of us continuing to repeat the same
> arguments on this point. If somebody else feels strongly about this point
and
> has something technical to offer, they should speak up.
> 

I like Ben's way of putting it - that my argument is philosophical. The
philosophical part is "pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate". Or to
translate that into IETF speak, "The protocol isn't finished when you have
nothing more to add - it's finished when you have nothing more to take
away."

I believe these principles are very relevant to the current discussion.
There are mechanisms in sip-privacy-04 (whose motivation is at best obscure,
at worst non-existent) that allow sip-privacy-04 to be abused - and not just
a 'potential', this has already happened; we have concrete examples of
customers of sip-privacy-04 who designed architectures around the abuse of
the document. I have argued that sip-privacy-04 has unnecessarily large
number of moving parts, which makes its eventual usage in the field
difficult to predict (already it's been suggested for unpopular uses that
weren't anticipated), and little internal justification for these systems.
By removing these potentially non-essential mechanisms we could close the
door on some of these abuses without, I think, impairing the system's
ability to operate. The Iraqi thread is essentially about this last point.

> 
> Bill already explained how malicious call trace works - you will not be
able to
> call that party back.

Maybe the draft should explain it rather than Bill.

------ Next note

[snip, condensing this down to the basics]

> ... this is completely bogus.

> ... where you then
> show up with a laundry list of items you want changed, and in most cases
not
> because there is anything technically wrong, but simply because you
personally   
> disagree with them... 

> I will furthermore also note,
> that you have not managed to produce a lot of support for your positions.
I
> think this goes a long way towards deciding what to do with some of your
> comments.

> Can it get any more hypocritical than this ?

> ... I'm
> becoming less and less convinced that you are interested in anything but
killing
> this draft.

Forgive me for not making a detailed answer to the points in this note,
though I'm sure the above citations will make it clear why I abstain.

I did want to speak to the consensus issue, though. I think most people are
monumentally indifferent to this draft, and probably the whole privacy
problem, and are looking for the fastest way out of this. Consensus is
impossible to gauge when nobody cares. That leaves us to debate the
technical merits (currently, the Iraqi thread). We should probably stick to
that rather than metadiscussion like the above.

> -- Flemming
> --
> Flemming Andreasen
> Cisco Systems

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

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 11:54:22 -0500

> nothing more to add - it's finished when you have nothing more to take

Humbug - how does one apply that to philosophy ? Besides, as recent discussions
has exemplified, this has hardly been a guiding principle so far, so why now all
of a sudden for this draft ?

> at worst non-existent)

Well, I have provided with you reasons several times. Mark has just summarized
them this morning. As for your judgement of these, you can only speak for
yourself, but I have yet to see a lot of support for your position.

> though I'm sure the above citations will make it clear why I abstain.

No they don't - the comments still stand and you have done nothing to convince
me otherwise. The fact that I have to continue repeating the same points over
and over again and you have failed to produce much support for your positions
only reaffirms my impression.

> problem, and are looking for the fastest way out of this.

Probably true. The people that care have contributed throughout the process and
hence have already shaped the draft. The people that chose not to participate,
well at least most of them recognize that there has been plenty of opportunity
to participate, and hence have the decency to not try and derail the whole thing
at the very last minute with a long list of more or less philosophical
objections.

> Consensus is

Well, we are not getting anywhere on that obviously. WG Last Call has completed
(a while ago actually), and I think it is in order for our chairs to gauge
consensus at this point and ensure timely progress in accordance with the
Working Group procedures defined in RFC 2418 - hopefully we don't need to
proceed to the RFC 2026 process. So far, I have only seen persistent objections
from you which would hardly seem to counter rough consensus.

-- Flemming