Subject: [sipcore] Location Conveyance Open Issue: Privacy Considerations

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:14:12 +0200

Hi, 

quite contrary to what one would assume for such a specification the discussion about privacy is extremely weak. It gets even more fuzzy by referencing arbitrary requirements from RFC 3693, which do not make a sense for a large number of people. 

I believe we can do better. 

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:06:37 -0500

At 03:14 AM 7/19/2010, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>Hi,
>
>quite contrary to what one would assume for such a specification the 
>discussion about privacy is extremely weak.

apparently you haven't read many SIP specifications then.  When 
securing header values, we recommend TLS per hop. When securing 
identity information, we recommend hashing many header values and 
include the hash with a url to where to check the hash. When securing 
message bodies, encrypt it with S/MIME.

>It gets even more fuzzy by referencing arbitrary requirements from 
>RFC 3693, which do not make a sense for a large number of people.

private addressing doesn't make sense until one reads RFC 1918. I 
could go on and on by listing more than a thousand RFCs whose topics 
don't make sense until one reads the RFCs.

Specifically wrt RFC 3693 - you need to be reminded that the old 
SIPPING document on the requirements for carrying location in SIP 
(circa 2003) are in the (only) appendix of this ID (and have been 
since the first SIP ID on the topic), which require adherence to RFC 
3693, along with RFCs 3261 and 4119 (which also probably doesn't make 
sense until one reads it).

>I believe we can do better.

I believe we need to do a better case of reading next time...

but maybe that's just my opinion

James

>Ciao
>Hannes
>
>_______________________________________________
>sipcore mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

---

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:46:25 +0200

Hi James, 

I was referring to Section 6 in the draft (copied into this mail to make it easier). 

I would suggest to replace the entire section with a reference to http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geopriv-arch/. Maybe a reference to http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5606/ would be useful as well. 

Hope that makes more sense. 

Ciao
Hannes

-----------

6. Geopriv Privacy Considerations

   Location information is considered by most to be highly
   sensitive information, requiring protection from eavesdropping,
   and altering in transit.  [RFC3693] articulates rules to
   be followed by any protocol wishing to be considered a "Using
   Protocol", specifying how a transport protocol meets those rules.
   This section describes how SIP as a Using Protocol meets those
   requirements.

   Quoting requirement #4 of [RFC3693]:

   "The Using Protocol has to obey the privacy and security
    instructions coded in the Location Object and in the
    corresponding Rules regarding the transmission and storage
    of the LO."

   This document requires that SIP entities sending or receiving
   location MUST obey such instructions.

   Quoting requirement #5 of [RFC3693]:

   "The Using Protocol will typically facilitate that the keys
    associated with the credentials are transported to the
    respective parties, that is, key establishment is the
    responsibility of the Using Protocol."

   [RFC3261] and the documents it references define the key
   establishment mechanisms.

   Quoting requirement #6 of [RFC3693]:

   "(Single Message Transfer)  In particular, for tracking of
    small Target devices, the design should allow a single
    message/packet transmission of location as a complete
    transaction."

   When used for tracking, a simple NOTIFY or UPDATE normally is
   relatively small, although the PIDF itself can be large.  Normal
   RFC 3261 procedures of reverting to TCP when the MTU size is
   exceeded would be invoked.

-------

Ciao
Hannes

---Nachricht --------
> Datum: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:06:37 -0500
> Von: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
> An: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Betreff: Re: [sipcore] Location Conveyance Open Issue: Privacy  Considerations