Authorization Policies for Preventing SPIT
draft-froment-sipping-spit-authz-policies-02
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Thomas Froment | ||
| Last updated | 2007-02-26 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
SPAM, defined as sending unsolicited messages to someone in bulk, might be a problem on SIP open-wide deployed networks. The responsibility for filtering or blocking calls can belong to different elements in the call flow and may depend on various factors. This document discusses mechanisms to establish policies to react on potentially unwanted communication attempts. These policies match a particular Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) communication pattern based on a number of attributes. The range of attributes includes information provided, for example, by the SIP itself, by the SIP identity mechanism, by information carried within SAML assertions (as introduced with SIP-SAML) and by the SPIT-SAML extensions. This document raises the question whether it is worth to investigate the aspect of authorization policy usage for SPIT prevention. If so, then the choice of a policy language for describing authorization policies and the details of the authorization policies becomes important. Mechanisms to create, modify and delete authorization policies that are stored in XML documents are already available with XCAP or WEBDAV and they could be reused.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)