| Telephone numbers are actually very interesting, useful, and resilient identifiers. Try taking your email address to a different provider. Or your sip URI. Try verbalizing your sip URI so you can give it to someone without first getting something from them (and how did you get that?). Unlikely that SIP URIs will replace telephone numbers in my lifetime.
The stir part of STIR/SHAKEN works fine on sip uris. The SHAKEN part doesn’t, but could be extended to pretty easily. I’m sorry you found it hard to understand. We have a heck of a lot of deployment underway, and the dev teams don’t seem to need a lot of help, so the documents are fairly good. I’m not close to the implementation work any more, but I think interoperability continues to be excellent.
I am heavily involved in the NANC IVC interoperable video conferencing work. It’s very interesting, but right now it’s voluntary. Many of the big players are participating, but there are zero commitments to deploy as yet. We’re heading towards using new routing protocols (so Shockey doesn’t need to be “convinced” to resurrect enum). Probably something along the lines of modern. No one wants a new monopoly player. There will be new IETF work coming out of IVC I think. It has features to support all sorts of assistive devices that need some form of interpreter, but NANC won’t do any signaling work — they are the telephone number routing experts.
Brian On Apr 27, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Michael Thomas < mike@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/27/20 2:04 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
On 4/27/20, 2:42 PM, "Michael Thomas" <mike@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/27/20 10:53 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> Actually the US Government is trying to mandate interoperable video calling.
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/fcc-announces-membership-nanc-interoperable-video-calling-working-group
Ah, interesting. Which would be the forcing function to overcome
monopolists desire for centralization. Does this have any likelihood of
overcoming the vested interests?
RS> Which set of vested interests are you talking about <snicker hurrumph>? If it’s the service providers they really don’t care. Believe me I've spoken to all of them about this over the years. "There is no money in this." "It’s a pain in the <fill in the blank>" "How do I monetize this?" The USG has several interests here and the gigantic sticking point is the Telephone Number to URI translation. It's now a constant issue. Not only in implementing STIR/SHAKEN but a bunch of other stuff as well. A subject I'm intimately familiar as the former co-chair of the IETF ENUM WG that produced RFC 6116. I've had calls. "So Shockey do you think its time to revive the ENUM WG to add DoH to 6116?" A: "Well you know my consulting fees."
Service providers, like say Zoom? Or like Telephants? Sorry it's not clear from the context here to me. Obviously Zoom and Facebook couldn't care less about telephone numbers, so they would be the vested interests to not wanting to do federation, right? So maybe you're talking about Telephants. Are you trying to tell me that they have finally wised up to their fever dreams about being something other than bit providers?? If so, will wonders never cease.
I'm on the FCC North Americian Numbering Counsil and have been for over 9 years. The FCC wants video calling to assist the disabled but also to foster its initiatives in Telemedicine. I get it. I've used it and once US Health and Human Services would allow reimbursement under Medicare the market exploded. Everyone is on a ZOOM kick right now, JItsi and dominance of of Gotomeeting and Webex. I understand the problem which is why I find this thread so amusing. Don’t get me started on the issues with WEBRTC and the APP vs browser dominance.
That said the biggest proponent of video calling is actually the US Dept of Defense. Those folks just LOVE video calling and Telepresence but when it comes forking out the bucks they would rather buy a new multi-billion dollar sub or something like that than deal with the infrastructure issues they would have to cover in both their red and black networks.
There is some progress here. The odd thing is US efforts to kill off robocalls may actually enable ubiquitous an interoperable video calling.
Well, but STIR/SHAKEN doesn't solve the spoofed identity for non-telephone sip: uri's problem (and it took me an inordinate amount of time to understand that). If you wanted to solve for federated video calling, it would be a lot better to steer well clear of old PSTN'isms IMO. I mean, what value does old PSTN stuff bringing to the table? Everything is just an IP endpoint these days. That is why I've been poking around with this space. It's definitely good to know that federation is not a dead letter. Maybe mostly dead, but that's not the same as all dead. :)Mike, channeling Miracle Max
|
