From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 08:14:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rucus-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C5A3A6AF7; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 08:14:29 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA203A6AF7 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 08:14:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tcmzt-9sBJxn for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 08:14:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from voxeo.com (mmail.voxeo.com [66.193.54.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BE1143A6AAE for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 08:14:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.65.228.203] (account dyork HELO pc-00144.lodestar2.dyndns.org) by voxeo.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.3) with ESMTPSA id 37432337; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:14:23 +0000 Message-Id: <569B3161-E0CA-4D55-99CB-07659DF741E1@voxeo.com> From: Dan York To: Hadriel Kaplan In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:14:21 -0500 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Cc: "rucus@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Rucus] Meeting Minutes from F2F at IETF#73 X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hadriel, Thanks for adding your valuable perspective here (well, *I* find it valuable, anyway), and yes, I completely agree with you that this is one of the areas of highest concern. It's the issue of expanding the "zone of trust" (or "trust domain" or whatever other phrase you want to use) as we interconnect the various different SIP clouds out there. Do I trust everyone to whom you are connected to practice the same "safe SIP" practices that I do on my network? And what happens when someone doesn't... Thanks, Dan On Nov 27, 2008, at 9:03 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > Anyway... so for me (not everyone), my concern is not about SPAM > from subscriber edge. It's from SPAM through the peering > interconnects, from *peers*. Because at some point in the future, > some provider in the interconnected islands of providers will > connect NoControlProvider.com into the chain, and all hell could > break loose. -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Build voice applications based on open standards. Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 09:07:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rucus-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9AA63A6AA6; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:07:47 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33DA33A6AA6 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:07:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6PSeX-VEIFUe for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:07:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from voxeo.com (mmail.voxeo.com [66.193.54.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D926A3A6A78 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:07:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.65.228.203] (account dyork HELO pc-00144.lodestar2.dyndns.org) by voxeo.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.3) with ESMTPSA id 37433746 for rucus@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:07:41 +0000 Message-Id: <323263D6-B104-4C13-8EC5-1FC4CFC3112C@voxeo.com> From: Dan York To: "rucus@ietf.org BoF" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:07:39 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Subject: [Rucus] Actions coming out of informal RUCUS meeting at IETF 73 X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Folks, At the informal RUCUS meeting at IETF 73 (see minutes here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus/current/msg00347.html ), part of the discussion was that while the charter for the RUCUS EG pointed at RFC 5039, that RFC alone does not provide the whole picture of the issues around SPIT/spam. It was also pointed out that while many of us may be aware of various different situations related to SPIT, much of that information has not been captured in any formal written documents but exists more in email threads or informal conversations. To that end, it was agreed that several people would write Internet- Drafts that document what is in fact going on out in actual deployments with regard to voice spam/SPIT and also spam in other areas. The list I have of who said they would submit a document is the following: - David Schwartz about email spam and lessons from there. - David Schwartz about the XConnect / Kayote experience thus far with SPIT. - Hannes Tschofenig about XMPP spam (and Hannes indicated he would contact Peter St. Andre) - Hendrik Scholz about the recent German SPIT attack (Jan Seedorf offered to help) - Juergen Quitteck/Jan Seedorf about some of the cases they have seen in their NEC incident database - Jan Seedorf about the differences between DKIM and SIP Identity (Jan agreed but indicated he would need the assistance of others in the room) It was agreed that these documents do NOT have to be long. They could be just a page or two if that is all it takes to summarize the incident/event/situation. The main point is to provide some written background information for our continued discussions about SPIT and what the IETF can or cannot do (which would then lead to the brief mechanism-focused Internet-Drafts that are discussed in the RUCUS charter). We also agreed that these documents would be submitted as Internet- Drafts because they then fit within the IETF workflow and are a standard format that others involved with the IETF (but not necessarily RUCUS) can find and understand. We did not set a deadline at the meeting, but I would suggest that if we could perhaps aim to have these brief documents put together by the end of this month (Dec 2008) or by, say, January 15th, that would help. I realize with holidays that may be tough, but as soon as possible would be great. I'd like to make the case to the ADs that RUCUS should have a formal time slot at IETF 74, but for that to occur we need to have some forward momentum. If we could have these summary documents in by mid-January, that gives us some time to pull together some mechanism-related drafts before the March meeting in SF that could then warrant some real face-to-face discussion. Thanks to everyone who volunteered to write a document - and if there are others on this list who want to contribute a short document about experiences you have seen related to spam in general or specifically SPIT, please *do*! Thanks, Dan -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Build voice applications based on open standards. Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 09:09:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rucus-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB9073A6A78; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:09:34 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD953A6A78 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:09:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.421 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.178, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ji5Umuc2JUsj for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:09:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from dizzyd.com (dizzyd.com [207.210.219.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29613A6992 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:09:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from wrk225.corp.jabber.com (dencfw1.jabber.com [207.182.164.5]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by dizzyd.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5BDB640505; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:04:44 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <49341A47.7030104@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:09:27 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080914 Thunderbird/2.0.0.17 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan York References: <323263D6-B104-4C13-8EC5-1FC4CFC3112C@voxeo.com> In-Reply-To: <323263D6-B104-4C13-8EC5-1FC4CFC3112C@voxeo.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Cc: "rucus@ietf.org BoF" Subject: Re: [Rucus] Actions coming out of informal RUCUS meeting at IETF 73 X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Dan York wrote: > - Hannes Tschofenig about XMPP spam (and Hannes indicated he would > contact Peter St. Andre) Hannes and I chatted about this in Minneapolis and I promised him that I would write something up. Now just to figure out when I'll have time... Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus