Re: Re: [Geopriv] Location-by-value in a SIP Location Header
Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip,gmane.ietf.geopriv |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I have to agree with Henning here. You can sign the PIDF-LO, encode it and then put it into the data URI. Even if you do not sign the PIDF-LO in the header it makes no difference since that's what you accomplish by sending a location reference (in the header) as well. The argument that you can use authorization policies to decide who is allowed to resolve the reference to the location object is a bit misleading. Where do these policies come from? Ciao Hannes Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > Brian, James: > > this is simply false. If desired, XML-DSIG is a well-known and accepted > mechanism to achieve integrity. Such specification is no longer than > the MUST NOT that you propose. You are also willfully ignoring the > other technical arguments made as part of this discussion. > > Henning > > On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Rosen, Brian wrote: > >> There was a desire expressed by Hannes to provide a way for a proxy to >> insert location-by-value. He had proposed a SIP Location header >> specific way. In IETF66, Henning suggested just using a data URI. >> >> Doing this may run afoul of the geopriv location privacy concerns, >> because there is no way for the user to sign the header to provide >> assurance that the PIDF, and specifically the retention and other policy >> bits are preserved. Note that S/MIME provides sufficient integrity >> protection for a body. It's probably okay to use TLS per hop to provide >> privacy, but not integrity protection. The authors believe that there >> is no really compelling use case for this feature, and the effort to >> define acceptable security mechanisms for location data in a header >> would be a significant effort, further delaying the draft. >> >> We propose, therefore, to state in sip-location-conveyance, that a Data >> URI MUST NOT be used in the Location header until a standards track RFC >> defines a suitable security mechanism to protect the PIDF in the header. >> >> Brian and James >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Geopriv mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol > Use [email protected] for questions on current sip > Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip > > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [email protected] for questions on current sip Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip