DOCUMENT TYPE
TITLE: ATIS/SIP Forum IP-NNI Task Force Meeting Notes, August 24-25, 2016, Denver, CO
SOURCE*: ATIS Coordinator
LEADER(S): Co-Chair: Martin Dolly, AT&T,
Co-Chair: Chris Wendt, Comcast,
Co-Chair: John Barnhill, Genband,
NOTICE
Only documents that are final/approved by an ATIS Committee represent the consensus of that Committee. Draft documents, on the other hand, are dynamic in natureand subject to change. Draft documents therefore may not accurately reflect the consensus of the ATIS Committee.
Neither ATIS nor the Committee makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, with respect to the sufficiency, accuracy or utility of the information or opinion contained or reflected in the material utilized. ATIS further expressly advises that any use of or reliance upon the material in question is at your risk and neither ATIS nor the Committee shall be liable for any damage or injury, of whatever nature, incurred by any person arising out of any utilization of the material. It is possible that this material will at some future date be included in a copyrighted work by ATIS.
* CONTACT: Drew Greco; email: Tel: 516-796-6087
ATIS/SIP Forum IP-NNI Task Force Meeting
Meeting Notes
Denver, CO – August 24-25, 2016
- WELCOME & CALL TO ORDER
Martin Dolly (AT&T), ATIS/SIP Forum IP-NNI Task Force Co-Chair, called the meeting to order and welcomed participants at 1:10p.m.MTon August 24, 2016.
- INTRODUCTIONS & SIGN IN
The meeting participants are listed below:
Name / Company / Email- Martin Dolly (TF Co-Chair)
- Chris Wendt (TF Co-Chair)
- Viqar Shaikh
- Ray Singh
- John Wullert*
- James Milko*
- Mike Nelson*
- Richard Revels*
- Phil Linse
- Mary Retka
- Steve Showell
- Jose Jimenez*
- Clark Whitten
- Lonnie Mitchell
- Arleen Elliott*
- George Foti
- Hala Mowafy*
- Bill Thompson
- Andy Gallant*
- Mike Hamilton*
- Mary Barnes
- Chris Drake
- Gary Richenaker
- Mike Usry
- Doug Bellows*
- Adam Uzelac*
- Ken Politz
- Syed Mubeen Saifullah
- Jim Calme
- Mohammad Khaled
- Jack Kozik*
- Gregory Bain
- Arye Ephrath*
- An Nguyen
- Carol-Lyn Taylor*
- Victor Pascual*
- Richard Shockey
- Pierce Gorman*
- David Holmes*
- Greg Schumacher*
- Mark Desterdick
- Drew Greco
- Jim McEachern
- Jackie Wohlgemuth
*Virtual participation
- REVIEW & APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was noted that the agenda was made available to participants via the ATIS Workspace as IPNNI-2016-000034R000. The agenda was modified as -000034R001. It was noted that the update on point-to-point video calling will be removed from the agenda as a standing item as there are no updates anticipated in the near future.
There was discussion on the Robocall Strike Force and the difference in roles between the Strike Force and the IP-NNI Task Force. It was noted that all Strike Force companies are required to sign an NDA; therefore participants should not expect readouts from the meetings in the ATIS meetings. It was noted that only the Strike Force will be discussing timelines and analytics; therefore, they will not be discussed in ATIS meetings. It was further noted that the timelines are for the carriers to determine because they are the ones that must adhere to them.
- ATIS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR) & ANTITRUST POLICIES
ATIS Procedure Notice: ATIS Forum and Committee activities must adhere to the ATIS Operating Procedures (including basic principles such as fairness, due process, respect for minority opinions, and common sense).
IPR Notice: In connection with the development of an American National Standard, or other deliverable that requires use of patented inventions, the use of patented inventions shall be governed by the ANSI Patent Policy as adopted by ATIS and as set forth in Section 10 of the "Operating Procedures for ATIS Forums and Committees." Under this policy:
- Disclosure of relevant patented inventions at the earliest possible time in the development process is encouraged. An opportunity will be provided for the members to identify or disclose patents that any member believes may be essential for the use of a standard under development.
- Neither the Committee, nor its leaders, can ensure the accuracy or completeness of any disclosure, investigate the validity or existence of a patent,or determine whether a patent is essential to the use of an ATIS deliverable.
- ATIS prohibits any discussion of licensing terms in its Forums and Committees.
Antitrust Risk Notice: The leaders further remind attendees that participation in industry fora involves the potential for antitrust concerns or risks. To avoid such concerns and risks, participants should carefully observe the "Operating Procedures for ATIS Forums and Committees". In addition, sensitive discussion topics such as price, territories, specific contractual terms, etc., should be avoided.
Questions: Participants having questions, comments, or concerns regarding any of these topics should consult with their company's legal counsel, the Committee leadership, ATIS staff, or ATIS legal counsel.
It was asked if there were any patents to identify or disclose at this time. There were no patent disclosures made by the attendees.
- APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING NOTES
The following previous meeting notes were available on the ATIS Workspace (AWS) for participant comment:
- IPNNI-2016-00032R000, July 11, 2016, virtual meeting
It was noted that there were no questions or comments regarding these meeting notes and they were accepted, without objection, as published.
- IP-NNI PHASE 2
VoIP Transition SecurityWhitepaper
It was noted that there were no input contributions toward this work at this time.
Update on the point-to-point video calling
Richard Shockey noted that there was nothing to report on this topic at this time. This will be removed as a standing agenda item.
- ANTI-SPOOFING CALLER MITIGATION TECHNIQUES
- Verified Token Proposal
- IPNNI-2016-00003R005, Baseline document
It was noted that this contribution contains the agreed baseline document with changes from the July 11, 2016 virtual meeting to which contributions will be made against.
The following suggestions were made to consider for updates to the baseline:
- Update the abstract to cover NNI requirements.
- Add clarification language around authentication. There are cases where the subscription can be traced back to the customer, but the TN cannot be attested to.
- It is important to be able to identify and attest to the gateway where VoIP wholesale traffic enters the network. This links the traffic to a specific wholesale provider.
- Add a PBX case where the IP address in the SBC is used by the VoIP application server to do call processing and the application server knows what TNs can be attested to for that enterprise VoIP subscriber.
- Add another attestment for the originating switch when the switch is not attesting to the fact that the devices attached directly to the network can use that number (i.e., the switch is not making any claims at all about the TN).
- Create a definition of “direct relationship” with a customer.
- Address ambiguity with respect to the FROM and P-A-I headers. It would be preferable if the P-A-I is present, then the P-A-I is signed. If the P-A-I is not present, the FROM header is signed.
- Determine if the CT work extending the reason header be used here regarding retries (200 OK message versus a new call invite).
Participants drafted the following set of PASSport Token Claims(IPNNI-2016-00037R000):
A – I have a direct relationship with the customer and am responsible for the origination of the call.
Note: A single identifier, which is part of the certificate, could cover all of the customers above, but a service provider may choose to have a pool of identifiers for this scenario. A service provider may choose to be more granular (e.g., assigning an identifier per certain categories of customers).
B – I have an indirect relationship with the call origination and I can identify my customer.
Note: A single identifier per customer is required. A service provider may choose to be more granular (e.g., per node per customer).
C – I have no relationship but I’m the entry point (e.g., international gateway).
Note: A single unique identifier of the node.
The following points were noted regarding the above claims:
- The plan is to define the SIP header parameter that would be associated either with the FROM header or the P-A-I header. Originally, the thought was to keep the process as simple as possible and either send an indication of “verified” or send nothing. In light of categories A, B, and C above, it was suggested it to use a CDR type of record to be stored and referenced (e.g., A is verified, B is not verified, but there is no need to signal anything to the UE).
- An interface to analytics may be an optional step. There is a need to define when verification happens and to identify the interface to the user. Everyone has a different set of analytics. There needs to be a basic default set minimal data identifying the Verification Function, with analytics as an optional additional step.
- What ultimately gets sent to the user device is either verified or nothing is sent if it is not verified. A simple SIP header field can be used for “verified”. There may also be a need to indicate “maybe”, based on the result ofanalytics (e.g., a verified 00 default encoded as XX to allow for further values to be added).
- The Task Force is focused on protocol, not the user experience.There should be a recommendation from the Task Force to the Strike Force on a minimum level of display elements that should be displayed to the user in all circumstances.
- It was suggested to use “verification status = xxx (verified is default)”.
The baseline was reposted as IPNNI-2016-00003R006.The following suggestions were made to update this version of the document:
- Expand the language on attestation in section 4 to include that attestation is at the service provider’s discretion.
- Remove “short term path” from section 1.2, or consider defining the term.
- Change VoIP in the abstract to IP based service provider voice network and make it consistent throughout
- Revisit separation between signature validation and call spam evaluation.
- Expand section 5.1 with more details on how to create the token.
- Consider removing in section 7.1 the relationship language from the attestation scenarios.
- Re-label Direct Initiator, Indirect Initiator and Gateway to Full attestation, Partial Attestation, No Attestation.
- It was alternately suggested to define direct and indirect relationship.
- Revise all occurrences of “level of assurance” to “attestation”.
- Discuss NNI implications.
Action Item: Chris Wendt will upload a new revision as -00003R007 with the output baseline from this meeting. The changes will be accepted and a clean version will be uploaded as -00003R008.
7.2 IPNNI-2016-00009R002, Verification Token Use Cases Clean Baseline
This contribution was noted as the current Verification Token Use Cases baseline document.
7.3 IPNNI-2016-00023R003, Caller ID Spoofing Potential Timeline & Dependencies
This agenda item was not discussed.
7.4 IPNNI-2016-00017R001, Display Framework Baseline
This contribution was noted as the current display framework baseline document.
- MODERN
There was nothing to report on MODERN at this time.
- FUTURE WORK/ASSIGNMENTS/MEETINGS
The following upcoming meetings were noted:
10.1Virtual Meetings
- September 7, 2016 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. ET
- September 14, 2016 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. ET
- September 21, 2016 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. ET
- September 28, 2016 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. ET
- October 5, 2016 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. ET
The goal of the virtual meetings is to initiate the approval process for Letter Ballot of the framework documents by October 5, 2016.
10.2Face-to-Face Meetings
- October 25 – 27, 2016 (Miami, FL) (Proposal to change the meeting to October 3 – 5, 2016 in Washington, DC)
- Monday, October 3, 1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. (PTSC)
- Tuesday, October 4, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (PTSC)
- Tuesday, October 4, 1:00 – 5:00 p.m. (IPNNI TF)
- Wednesday, October 5, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (IPNNI TF)
- ANY OTHER BUSINESS
- IPNNI-2016-00035R000,Correspondence from NGIIF regarding a request for SHAKEN Trust Premise Consideration
Mary Retka (CenturyLink) reviewed a request from ATIS NGIIF for SHAKEN Trust Premise consideration. Ms. Retka noted that the NGIIF request was addressed during this meeting and she would relay that message during the next NGIIF meeting. There was no need for formal correspondence from the Task Force.
10.2.IPNNI-2016-00036R000,Verified Token Framework Consideration of NS/EP Priority Services
Ray Singh (ACS) noted this contribution for information.
- ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Dolly thanked participants for attending and adjourned the meeting at 11:25p.m.MTon August 25, 2016.
Notes submitted by:
Drew Greco, ATIS Coordinator
1