[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-peterson-passport-divert) 00 01 02 03 04

Network Working Group                                        J. Peterson
Internet-Draft                                                   Neustar
Updates: RFC8224 (if approved)                          October 22, 2018
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: April 25, 2019


                 PASSporT Extension for Diverted Calls
                 draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-04.txt

Abstract

   This document extends PASSporT, which conveys cryptographically-
   signed information about the people involved in personal
   communications, to include an indication that a call has been
   diverted from its original destination to a new one.  This
   information can greatly improve the decisions made by verification
   services in call forwarding scenarios.  Also specified here is an
   encapsulation mechanism for nesting a PASSporT within another
   PASSporT that assists relying parties in some diversion scenarios.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Peterson                 Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              PASSporT Diverted               October 2018


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  PASSporT 'div' Claim  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Using 'div' in SIP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Authentication Service Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Verification Service Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Definition of 'opt' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  'div' and Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Extending 'div' to work with Service Logic Tracking . . . . .   9
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.1.  'div' registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.2.  'opt' registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   PASSporT [RFC8225] is a token format based on JWT [RFC7519] for
   conveying cryptographically-signed information about the people
   involved in personal communications; it is used with STIR [RFC8224]
   to convey a signed assertion of the identity of the participants in
   real-time communications established via a protocol like SIP.  This
   specification extends PASSporT to include an indication that a call
   has been diverted from its originally destination to a new one.

   Although the STIR problem statement [RFC7340] is focused on
   preventing the impersonation of the caller's identity, which is a
   common enabler for threats such as robocalling and voicemail hacking
   on the telephone network today, it also provides a signature over the
   called number as the authentication service sees it.  As [RFC8224]
   Section 12.1 describes, this protection over the contents of the To
   header field is intended to prevent a class of cut-and-paste attacks.
   If Alice calls Bob, for example, Bob might attempt to cut-and-paste
   the Identity header field in Alice's INVITE into a new INVITE that
   Bob sends to Carol, and thus be able to fool Carol into thinking the
   call came from Alice and not Bob. With the signature over the To
   header field value, the INVITE Carol sees will clearly have been



Peterson                 Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              PASSporT Diverted               October 2018


   destined originally for Bob, and thus Carol can view the INVITE as
   suspect.

   However, as [RFC8224] Section 12.1.1 points out, it is difficult for
   Carol to confirm or reject these suspicions based on the information
   she receives from the baseline PASSporT object.  The common "call
   forwarding" service serves as a good example of the fact that the
   original called party number is not always the number to which a call
   is delivered.  The address in the To header field value of SIP
   requests is not supposed to change, accordingly to baseline
   [RFC3261], as it is the Request-URI that is supposed to be updated
   when a call is retargeted, but practically speaking some operational
   environments do alter the To header field.  There are a number of
   potential ways for intermediaries to indicate that such a forwarding
   operating has taken place.  The History-Info header field [RFC7044]
   was created to store the Request-URIs that are discarded by a call in
   transit.  The SIP Diversion header field [RFC5806], though historic,
   is still used for this purpose by some operators today.  Neither of
   these header fields provide any cryptographic assurance of secure
   redirection, and they can both capture minor syntactical changes in
   URIs that do not reflect a change to the actual target of a call.

   This specification therefore extends PASSporT with an explicit
   indication that the original called number in PASSporT no longer
   reflects the destination to which a call is likely to be delivered.
   Verification services and the relying parties who make authorization
   decisions about communications may use this indication to confirm
   that a legitimate retargeting of the call has taken place, rather
   than a cut-and-paste attack.  In support of this goal, this
   specification also defines a nesting mechanism for PASSporTs that
   allows the original unmodified PASSporT to be conveyed to relying
   parties.

2.  Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
   RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
   described in [RFC2119].

3.  PASSporT 'div' Claim

   This specification defines a new JSON Web Token claim for "div" which
   indicates a previous destination for a call during its routing
   process.  When a retargeting entity receives a call signed with a
   PASSporT, it may act as an authentication service and create a new
   PASSporT containing the "div" claim to attach to the call.  Note that
   a new PASSporT is only necessary when the canonical form of the



Peterson                 Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              PASSporT Diverted               October 2018


   "dest" identifier (per the canonicalization procedures in [RFC8224]
   Section 8) changes due to this retargeting. "div" is populated with a
   destination address found in the "dest" field of PASSporT received by
   the retargeting entity as well as a copy of the original PASSporT.
   These new PASSporTs generated by retargeting entities MUST include
   the "div" PASSporT type, and an "x5u" field pointing to a credential
   that the retargeting entity controls.  The new PASSporT header will
   look as follows:

   { "typ":"passport",
     "ppt":"div",
     "alg":"ES256",
     "x5u":"https://www.example.com/cert.pkx" }

   A PASSporT claims object containing "div" is populated with a
   modification of the original token before the call was retargeted: at
   a high level, the original identifier for the called party in the
   "dest" array will become the "div" claim in the new PASSporT.  If the
   "dest" array of the original PASSporT contains multiple identifiers,
   the retargeting entity MUST select only one them to occupy the "div"
   field in the new PASSporT, and in particular, it MUST select an
   identifier that is within the scope of the credential that the
   retargeting entity will specify in the "x5u" of the PASSporT header
   (as described below).

   The new target for the call selected by the retargeting entity
   becomes the value of the "dest" array of the new PASSporT.  The
   "orig" value MUST be copied into the new PASSporT from the original
   PASSporT received by the retargeting entity.  The retargeting entity
   SHOULD retain the "iat" value from the original PASSporT, though if
   in the underlying signaling protocol (e.g.  SIP) the retargeting
   entity changes the date and time information in the retargeted
   request, the new PASSporT should instead reflect that date and time.
   "opt" (see Section 5) contains the full form of the original PASSporT
   from which the "div" was generated.  No other extension claims should
   be copied from the original PASSporT to the "div" PASSporT.

   So, for an original PASSporT of the form:

      { "orig":{"tn":"12155551212"},
        "dest":{"tn":"12155551213"},
        "iat":1443208345 }

   If the retargeting entity is changing the target from 12155551213 to
   12155551214, the new PASSporT with "div" would look as follows:






Peterson                 Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              PASSporT Diverted               October 2018


     { "orig":{"tn":"12155551212"},
       "dest":{"tn":"12155551214"},
       "iat":1443208345,
       "div":{"tn":"121555551213"},
       "opt":"eyJ0eXAiOiJwYXNzcG9ydCIsInBwdCI6ImRpdiIsImFsZyI6IkVT \
           MjU2IiwieDV1IjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vY2VydC5wa3g \
           ifQ==.eyJvcmlnIjp7InRuIjoiMTIxNTU1NTEyMTIifSwiZGVzdCI6eyJ0b \
           iI6IjEyMTU1NTUxMjEzIn0sImlhdCI6MTQ0MzIwODM0NX0=.rq3pjT1hoRw \
           akEGjHCnWSwUnshd0-zJ6F1VOgFWSjHBr8Qjpjlk-cpFYpFYsojNCpTzO3Q \
           fPOlckGaS6hEck7w"} }

   Note that the "div" claim may contain other elements than just a
   destination, including a History-Info indicator (see Section 7).
   After the PASSporT header and claims have been constructed, their
   signature is generated per the guidance in [RFC8225] - except for the
   credential required to sign it.  While in the ordinary construction
   of a PASSporT, the credential used to sign will have authority over
   the identity in the "orig" claim (for example, a certificate with
   authority over the telephone number in "orig" per [RFC8226]), for all
   PASSporTs using the "div" type the signature MUST be created with a
   credential with authority over the identity present in the "div"
   claim.  So for the example above, where the original "dest" is
   "12155551213", the signer of the new PASSporT object MUST have
   authority over that telephone number, and need not have any authority
   over the telephone number present in the "orig" claim.

   Instead of having multiple unlinked PASSporTs associated with a
   single call, it is helpful to relying parties to nest diversion
   PASSporTs, explicitly relating the original PASSporT to the diverted
   one.  Note that the approach of having multiple Identity headers in a
   SIP request was considered in prior versions of this specification,
   but it could be confusing for some verification services.  The "opt"
   extension is REQUIRED for use within in-band SIP use cases as well as
   out-of-band [I-D.ietf-stir-oob] scenarios.  Nested PASSporTs could
   result in lengthy Identity headers, and some operational experience
   is needed to ascertain how resilient legacy implementations will be
   to large headers.

4.  Using 'div' in SIP

   This section specifies SIP-specific usage for the "div" PASSporT type
   and its handling in the SIP Identity header field "ppt" parameter
   value.  Other using protocols of PASSporT may define behavior
   specific to their use of the "div" claim.







Peterson                 Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              PASSporT Diverted               October 2018


4.1.  Authentication Service Behavior

   An authentication service only adds an Identity header field value
   containing the "div" PASSporT type to a SIP request that already
   contains at least one Identity header field value; it MUST NOT add a
   "div" PASSporT to an INVITE that contains no Identity headers field.
   As the authentication service will be adding a new PASSporT that
   contains an encapsulation of the original, it SHOULD remove the
   original request's Identity header field value before forwarding.
   Note that a request may contain multiple Identity header field values
   generated by different authorities; as a consequence, the retargeting
   authentication service may need to perform this operation on multiple
   existing PASSporTs, adding a "div" PASSporT per PASSporT in the
   original.  When adding an Identity header field with a PASSporT
   object containing a "div" claim, SIP authentication services MUST
   also add a "ppt" parameter to that Identity header with a value of
   "div".  The resulting full form Identity header field to add to the
   message might look as follows:

      Identity: eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6InBhc3Nwb3J0IiwieDV1IjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9 \
          jZXJ0LmV4YW1wbGUub3JnL3Bhc3Nwb3J0LmNlciJ9.eyJvcmlnIjp7InRuIjoiMTIxNTU1NTE \
          yMTIifSwiZGVzdCI6eyJ0biI6IjEyMTU1NTUxMjE0In0sImlhdCI6MTQ0MzIwODM0NSwiZGl2 \
          Ijp7InRuIjoiMTIxNTU1NTUxMjEzIn0sIm9wdCI6ImV5SjBlWEFpT2lKd1lYTnpjRzl5ZENJc \
          0luQndkQ0k2SW1ScGRpSXNJbUZzWnlJNklrVlRNalUySWl3aWVEVjFJam9pYUhSMGNITTZMeT \
          kzZDNjdVpYaGhiWEJzWlM1amIyMHZZMlZ5ZEM1d2EzZ2lmUT09LmV5SnZjbWxuSWpwN0luUnV \
          Jam9pTVRJeE5UVTFOVEV5TVRJaWZTd2laR1Z6ZENJNmV5SjBiaUk2SWpFeU1UVTFOVFV4TWpF \
          ekluMHNJbWxoZENJNk1UUTBNekl3T0RNME5YMD0ucnEzcGpUMWhvUndha0VHakhDbldTd1Vuc \
          2hkMC16SjZGMVZPZ0ZXU2pIQnI4UWpwamxrLWNwRllwRllzb2pOQ3BUek8zUWZQT2xja0dhUz \
          ZoRWNrN3cifX0=.rq3pjT1hoRwakEGjHCnWSwUnshd0-zJ6F1VOgFWSjHBr8Qjpjlk-cpFYpF \
          YsojNCpTzO3QfPOlckGaS6hEck7w;
      info=<https://biloxi.example.org/biloxi.cer>;alg=ES256;ppt="div"

   A SIP authentication service typically will derive the new value of
   "dest" from a new Request-URI that is set for the SIP request before
   it is forwarded.  Older values of the Request-URI may appear in
   header fields like Diversion or History-Info; this document specifies
   no specific interaction between the "div" mechanism and those SIP
   header fields.  Note as well that because PASSporT operates on
   canonicalized telephone numbers and normalized URIs, many smaller
   changes to the syntax of identifiers that might be captured by other
   mechanisms that record retargeting (like History-Info) will likely
   not require a "div" PASSporT.

4.2.  Verification Service Behavior

   [RFC8224] Section 6.2 Step 5 requires that specifications defining
   "ppt" values describe any additional verifier behavior.  The behavior
   specified for the "div" value of "ppt" is as follows.



Peterson                 Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              PASSporT Diverted               October 2018


   In order to use the "div" extension, a verification service needs to
   inspect any nested PASSporT objects within PASSporTs it validates, as
   an Identity header field value containing "div" necessarily refers to
   an earlier PASSporT nested.  If a nested PASSporT within a "div"
   PASSporT contains a "dest" claim with a value not equivalent to the
   "div" claim in the "div" PASSporT, that "div" PASSporT SHOULD NOT be
   considered valid.  It is possible that this nested PASSporT will also
   contain a "div", and that it will in turn chain to a still earlier
   PASSporT nested within it.  Ultimately, by looking at this chain of
   transformations and validating the associated signatures, the
   verification service will be able to ascertain that the appropriate
   parties were responsible for the retargeting of the call to its
   ultimate destination; this can help the verification service to
   determine that the original PASSporT in the call was not simply used
   in a cut-and-paste attack.  This will help relying parties to make
   any associated authorization decisions in terms of how the call will
   be treated - though, per [RFC8224] Section 6.2.1, that decision is a
   matter of local policy.

5.  Definition of 'opt'

   The presence of an original PASSporT claims object element,
   designated as "opt", signifies that a PASSporT encapsulates another
   entire PASSporT within it, typically a PASSporT that was transformed
   in some way to create the current PASSporT.  Relying parties may need
   to consult the encapsulated PASSporT in order to validate the
   identity of a caller. "opt" as defined in this specification may be
   used by future PASSporT extensions as well as in conjunction with
   "div".

   "opt" MUST contain a quoted base64 encoded full-form PASSporT; it
   MUST NOT contain a compact form PASSporT.  For an example of a "div"
   PASSporT containing "opt," see Section 3.

6.  'div' and Redirection

   The "div" mechanism exists primarily to prevent false negatives at
   verification services when an arriving SIP request, due to
   intermediary retargeting, does not appear to be intended for its
   eventual recipient, because its "dest" value designates a different
   original destination.

   Any intermediary that assigns a new target to a request can, instead
   of retargeting and forwarding the request, instead redirect with a
   3xx response code.  In ordinary operations, a redirection poses no
   difficulties for the operations of baseline STIR: when the UAC
   receives the 3xx response, it will initiate a new request to the new
   target (typically the target carried in the Contact header field



Peterson                 Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              PASSporT Diverted               October 2018


   value of the 3xx), and the "dest" of the PASSporT created for the new
   request will match that new target.  As no impersonation attack can
   arise from this case, it creates no new requirements for STIR.

   However, some UACs record the original target of a call with
   mechanisms like History-Info [RFC7044] or Diversion [RFC5806], and
   may want to leverage STIR to demonstrate to the ultimate recipient
   that the call has been redirected securely: that is, that the
   original destination was the one that sent the redirection message
   that led to the recipient receiving the request.  The semantics of
   the PASSporT necessary for that assertion are the same as those for
   the "div" retargeting cases above.  The only wrinkle is that the
   PASSporT needs to be generated by the redirecting entity and sent
   back to the originating user agent client within the 3xx response.

   This introduces more complexity than might immediately be apparent.
   In the first place, a 3xx response can convey multiple targets
   through the Contact header field value; to accommodate this, the
   "div" PASSporT MAY include one "dest" array value per Contact, but if
   the retargeting entity wants to keep the Contact list private from
   targets, it may need to generate one PASSporT per Contact.  Bear in
   mind as well that the original SIP request could have carried
   multiple Identity header field values that had been added by
   different authentication services in the request path, so a
   redirecting entity might need to generate one nested "div" PASSporT
   per each PASSporT in the original request.  Often this will mean just
   one "div" PASSporT, but for some deployment scenarios, it could
   require an impractical number of combinations.  But in very complex
   call routing scenarios, attestation of source identity would only add
   limited value anyway.

   STIR-aware intermediaries that redirect requests MAY therefore convey
   one or more PASSporTs in the backwards direction within Identity
   headers.  This document consequently updates [RFC8224] to permit
   carrying Identity headers in SIP 300-class responses.  It is left to
   authentication services to determine which Identity headers should be
   copied into any new requests resulting from the redirection, if any:
   use of these Identity headers by entities receiving a 3xx response is
   OPTIONAL.

   Finally, note that if an intermediary in the response path consumes
   the 3xx and explores new targets itself while performing sequential
   forking, it will effectively retarget the call on behalf of the
   redirecting server, and this will create the same need for "div"
   PASSporTs as any other retargeted call.






Peterson                 Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              PASSporT Diverted               October 2018


7.  Extending 'div' to work with Service Logic Tracking

   It is anticipated that "div" may be used in concert with History-Info
   [RFC7044] in some deployments.  It may not be clear from the "orig"
   and "dest" values which History-Info header a given PASSporT
   correlates to, especially because some of the target changes tracked
   by History-Info will not be reflected in a "div" PASSporT (see
   Section 1).  Therefore an "hi" element may appear in "div"
   corresponding to the History-Info header field index parameter value.
   So for a History-Info header with an index value of "1.2.1", the
   claims object of the corresponding PASSporT with "div" might look
   like:

      { "orig":{"tn":"12155551212"},
        "dest":{"tn":"12155551214"},
        "iat":1443208345,
        "div":{"tn":"121555551213",
               "hi":"1.2.1"}
        "opt":[...]" }

   Past experience has shown that there may be additional information
   about the motivation for retargeting that relying parties might
   consider when making authorization decisions about a call, see for
   example the "reason" associated with the SIP Diversion header field
   [RFC5806].  Future extensions to this specification might incorporate
   reasons into "div".

8.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Eric Burger, Dave Hancock, Chris Wendt and
   Robert Sparks for contributions to this document.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This specification requests that the IANA add two new claims to the
   JSON Web Token Claims registry as defined in [RFC7519].

9.1.  'div' registration

   Claim Name: "div"

   Claim Description: New Target of a Call

   Change Controller: IESG

   Specification Document(s): [RFCThis]





Peterson                 Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              PASSporT Diverted               October 2018


9.2.  'opt' registration

   Claim Name: "opt"

   Claim Description: Encapsulated JSON token

   Change Controller: IESG

   Specification Document(s): [RFCThis]

10.  Security Considerations

   This specification describes a security feature, and is primarily
   concerned with increasing security when calls are forwarded.
   Including information about how calls were retargeted during the
   routing process can allow downstream entities to infer particulars of
   the policies used to route calls through the network.  However,
   including this information about forwarding is at the discretion of
   the retargeting entity, so if there is a requirement to keep the
   original called number confidential, no PASSporT should be created
   for that retargeting - the only consequence will be that downstream
   entities will be unable to correlate an incoming call with the
   original PASSporT without access to some prior knowledge of the
   policies that could have caused the retargeting.

   Any extension that makes PASSporTs larger creates a potential
   amplification mechanism for SIP-based DDoS attacks.  Since diversion
   PASSporTs are created as a part of normal forwarding activity, this
   risk arises at the discretion of the retargeting domain: simply using
   3xx response redirections rather than retargeting (with supply a
   "div" per Section 6) mitigates the potential impact.  Under unusual
   traffic loads, even domains that might ordinarily retarget requests
   can switch to redirection.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.



Peterson                 Expires April 25, 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              PASSporT Diverted               October 2018


   [RFC7044]  Barnes, M., Audet, F., Schubert, S., van Elburg, J., and
              C. Holmberg, "An Extension to the Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP) for Request History Information", RFC 7044,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7044, February 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7044>.

   [RFC7519]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
              (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.

   [RFC8224]  Peterson, J., Jennings, C., Rescorla, E., and C. Wendt,
              "Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 8224,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8224, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8224>.

   [RFC8225]  Wendt, C. and J. Peterson, "PASSporT: Personal Assertion
              Token", RFC 8225, DOI 10.17487/RFC8225, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8225>.

   [RFC8226]  Peterson, J. and S. Turner, "Secure Telephone Identity
              Credentials: Certificates", RFC 8226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8226, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8226>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-stir-oob]
              Rescorla, E. and J. Peterson, "STIR Out-of-Band
              Architecture and Use Cases", draft-ietf-stir-oob-03 (work
              in progress), July 2018.

   [RFC5806]  Levy, S. and M. Mohali, Ed., "Diversion Indication in
              SIP", RFC 5806, DOI 10.17487/RFC5806, March 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5806>.

   [RFC7340]  Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and H. Tschofenig, "Secure
              Telephone Identity Problem Statement and Requirements",
              RFC 7340, DOI 10.17487/RFC7340, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7340>.

Author's Address









Peterson                 Expires April 25, 2019                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              PASSporT Diverted               October 2018


   Jon Peterson
   Neustar, Inc.
   1800 Sutter St Suite 570
   Concord, CA  94520
   US

   Email: jon.peterson@team.neustar












































Peterson                 Expires April 25, 2019                [Page 12]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/