Re: [Sip] Are we having an Identity crisis?

["Dan York" <dyork at voxeo.com>]

Eric,

I like the idea of an Identity Working Group because it would attract others who, like you said, don't care as much about some of the SIP connection issues. However, given that "identity" is such a loaded term these days on the Internet, I think we need to be clear that this is about *SIP* identity and not about general Internet identity issues. Otherwise we could easily wind up off in the land of web identity, OpenID, etc.

I even have a name for you... How about something like:

CIRCUS - Communication Identity & Relationships Using SIP

:-)

Dan
-- 
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO    Voxeo Corporation     dyork at voxeo.com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859  Skype: danyork  http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com

Bring your web applications to the phone.
Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Burger <eburger at standardstrack.com>

Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:33:40 
To: Cullen Jennings<fluffy at cisco.com>
Cc: SIP IETF<sip at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sip] Are we having an Identity crisis?


I vote for the latter: form an Identity Work Group.  That will (1)
attract security folks whom would not be interested in INFO, (2)
attract privacy folks who would not be interested in Connection Reuse,
and (3) help SIP finish.

On Jul 20, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

>>
>>
>> 1. Mechanisms for secure expression of identity in requests and
>> responses.
>>
>> --------------
>>
>> RFC 4474 certainly does nothing for identity in responses, so it
>> doesn't meet the requirement of our charter. so work on responses
>> is clearly in the scope of the charter. And note that the charter
>> doesn't say "A mechanism" but "mechanisms", so revising RFC 4474 or
>> documenting an alternative is arguably within the scope of our
>> charter.
>>
>>
>> Is developing the requirements for #1 above something we can
>> actually accomplish with a strong consensus? I hope so.
>
>
> This part of the charter was written to cover the work in RFC 4474
> and RFC 4916.
>
> As folks figure out what is the problem that Dean wants to solve
> around Identity and what solutions are possible, we can figure out
> if it should happen in SIP, SIPPING, or a new WG and adjust charters
> accordingly.
>
>
> Cullen <as RAI AD>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip