Subject: [Asap] ASAP IETF 111 - Follow up on discussion

From: "Sreekanth Narayanan (sreenara)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:40:21 +0000

Hi Jonathan, Jon, Chris,

We wanted to follow up on some of the discussion points from the ASAP meeting @ IETF 111.

Jonathan: Happy to see things added into the draft about STIR. Comments on things that aren’t in the draft - firstly, there is a flag called STIRCompliance which is a Boolean. This is a tautology as the all service providers in the United States are required to be STIR complaint as of June 30th 2021. To me the more interesting thing is how PASSporTs are handled in and out. For example, when calls are sent from contact centre providers to carriers, will the carriers accept the PASSporT inserted by the contact centre provider and pass them through. Also, would they verify if the numbers are part of the range that has been allocated. These are certain aspects that need to be manually probed as of today. Would be nice to see some bits within the draft that captures this information. I’m less optimistic about getting certificates using the fields in the draft - therefore the cert delegation fields within the draft are less useful to me.

  1.  With regards to the presence of the STIRCompliance field, while it is true that STIR/SHAKEN is a required construct for TELCOs in the US to implement, there are still other parts of the world that are yet to even consider passing legislation that makes STIR/SHAKEN support mandatory. We feel that to have this draft be representative of deployment realities across the globe, this would be a useful field.

  1.  With regards to handling of PASSporTs - specifically around whether the source TELCO chooses to pass through the enterprise/contact centre inserted PASSporT, we assume that the PASSporT is signed by a credential delegated by the TELCO? If not, we are unsure of how the destination TELCO receiving the call is able to trust a “non-TELCO” credential. In scenarios where the enterprise/contact centre inserted credential is passed across to the destination TELCO, we assume that the originating TELCO adds it own locally generated PASSporT too?

Jonathan Rosenberg: Law doesn’t mandate all behaviors. It would be useful to encode the variabilities for both ingress and egress STIR in the draft.

            What aspects of ingress and egress STIR do you think would be useful additions to the draft?

Jon Peterson: Good to see the STIR stuff included in the draft. Lot of discussion around provisioning systems that are related to STIR. There is  interest in pre-provisioning systems to sign and attest numbers in a certain way. There are a bunch of things with regards to provisioning that can be discussed on the list and added into the draft. Definitely interested to see more standardization around pre-provisioning.

            We’re happy to have a discussion on the mailer about what aspects of STIR/SHAKEN make useful additions to this draft and what could serve as different specs.

Regards

Sreekanth