One document matched: draft-schwartz-rucus-test-cases-00.txt
Network Working Group D. Schwartz
Internet-Draft XConnect Global Networks
Intended status: Informational July 7, 2008
Expires: January 8, 2009
RUCUS Test Cases
draft-schwartz-rucus-test-cases-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
This document is meant to serve as a repository for test cases
assoicated with taking some action upon receipt of unwanted
communications.
Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2. Test Case 1: Use of draft-wing-sipping-spam-score-02 . . . ancho
2.1. Test Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.2. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.2.1. No Spam Score is generated . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.2.2. 'Whitelist' score from 'trusted' upstream server . ancho
2.2.3. 'Whitelist' score from 'un-trusted' upstream server ancho
2.2.4. 'Graylist' score from upstream server . . . . . . . ancho
2.2.5. 'Blacklist' score from upstream server . . . . . . ancho
2.3. Test Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.3.1. Allow All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.3.2. Allow all containing a SPAM header . . . . . . . . ancho
2.3.3. Allow with no score header or header with specific
score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.3.4. Allow only with score header or header with
specific score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.4. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.4.1. Response Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.4.2. 'X' Upper limit of the 'whitelist' range . . . . . ancho
2.4.3. 'Y' Upper limit of the 'graylist' range . . . . . . ancho
2.4.4. Primary Route Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.4.5. Secondary Route Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.5. Example Test Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.5.1. Whitelist Trusted Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.5.2. Whitelist Un-Trusted Score . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
2.5.3. Graylist Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . secur
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . .
Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008
1. Introduction
As part of the ongoing work to qualify the unwanted communication
threat there is a need to document potential approaches being tried
throughout the industry. This draft is meant to serve as a
repository for these approaches and is intended for informative
puroposes only.
2. Test Case 1: Use of draft-wing-sipping-spam-score-02
[I-D.wing-sipping-spam-score] defines a mechanism for SIP proxies to
communicate a spam score to downstream SIP proxies and to SIP user
agents. This test case discusses a test setup making use of some
parts of this spam score draft. To recap, it is desirable for SIP
proxies to insert a spam score so that downstream SIP proxies and
downstream SIP user agents can use a high score to decide that
special handling is required.
2.1. Test Architecture
The architecture chosen for this test is quite simple and involves an
upstream Spam-Score generation server, a downstream receiving SBC and
further downstream destinations (both primary and alternate). The
idea is to generate the score and have the SBC behave differently
depending on both the presence of a score as well as the actual
score.
_____________
| |
| Primary |
| Destination |
_________ ________ /| |
/ \ | | / |_____________|
| Spam | | User |/
| Score |----| Agent |\ _____________
| Generator | | Server | \ | |
\_________/ |________| \| |
| Secondary |
| Destination |
|_____________|
Figure 1: Test Case 1 Architecture
Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008
2.2. Use Cases
The test consists of five basic scenarios or use cases. For all
cases the assumption is that the variable 'X' marks the upper limit
of a whitelist indication and that the variable 'Y' marks the upper
limit of a graylist indication.
2.2.1. No Spam Score is generated
This is a baseline of sorts and is there to test one of two possible
outcomes; message dropped and message allowed through, nonetheless.
2.2.2. 'Whitelist' score from 'trusted' upstream server
This test has the upstream server generate a 'whitelist' score (0 <=
score < X) and the assumption is that there is a trust relationship
between the upstream server and the receiving UAS.
2.2.3. 'Whitelist' score from 'un-trusted' upstream server
This test has the upstream server generate a 'whitelist' score (0 <=
score < X) and the assumption is that there is no trust relationship
between the upstream server and the receiving UAS.
2.2.4. 'Graylist' score from upstream server
This test has the upstream server generate a 'graylist' score (X <=
score < Y) and the assumption is that there is a trust relationship
between the upstream server and the receiving UAS.
2.2.5. 'Blacklist' score from upstream server
This test has the upstream server generate a 'blacklist' score (Y <=
score < 100) and the assumption is that there is a trust relationship
between the upstream server and the receiving UAS.
2.3. Test Configurations
For each of the use cases listed above we would like to test the
following configurations
2.3.1. Allow All
In this configuration all calls are allowed to proceed downstream
unhindered regardless of both the presence of a score header or the
value therein.
Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008
2.3.2. Allow all containing a SPAM header
In this configuration all calls are allowed to proceed downstream
unhindered ONLY if they contain a score header REGARDLESS of the
value contained therein.
2.3.3. Allow with no score header or header with specific score
In this configuration all calls are allowed to proceed downstream
unhindered with no score header. If a header exists, however, the
following behavior is followed:
2.3.3.1. 'Whitelist' score
Route to Primary destination.
2.3.3.2. 'Graylist' score
Route to Secondary destination.
2.3.4. Allow only with score header or header with specific score
In this configuration all calls are allowed to proceed downstream
unhindered ONLY in presence of score header and than only as per the
following behavior:
2.3.4.1. 'Whitelist' score
Route to Primary destination.
2.3.4.2. 'Graylist' score
Route to Secondary destination.
2.4. Test Parameters
The following are configurable per realm:
2.4.1. Response Code
This is the response code returned upstream upon blocking of a call
due to the suspicion of SPAM.
2.4.2. 'X' Upper limit of the 'whitelist' range
This is the value above which calls are assumed to be 'gray'. By
default this value is assumed to be 75.
Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008
2.4.3. 'Y' Upper limit of the 'graylist' range
This is the value above which calls are assumed to be 'black'. By
default this value is assumed to be 100.
2.4.4. Primary Route Address
Where to route calls not suspected to be SPAM.
2.4.5. Secondary Route Address
Where to route calls suspected to be SPAM. This could be a voice
mail box for instance.
2.5. Example Test Messages
Only the relevant parts of the message are shown:
2.5.1. Whitelist Trusted Score
INVITE ...
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS trusted.upstream.com;branch=z9hG4bK-14362-1-0
From: white <white@trusted.upstream.com>;tag=1
...
Spam-Score: 0 ;spam-realm=trusted.upstream.com
Subject: Spam Score Whitelist Test
...
Figure 2: Whitelist Trusted Score
2.5.2. Whitelist Un-Trusted Score
INVITE ...
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS questionable.upstream.com;branch=z9hG4bK-14
From: white <white@questionable.upstream.com>;tag=1
...
Spam-Score: 0 ;spam-realm=questionable.upstream.com
Subject: Spam Score Graylist Test
...
Figure 3: Whitelist unTrusted Score
Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008
2.5.3. Graylist Score
INVITE ...
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS trusted.upstream.com;branch=z9hG4bK-14362-1-0
From: white <white@trusted.upstream.com>;tag=1
...
Spam-Score: 75 ;spam-realm=trusted.upstream.com
Subject: Spam Score Graylist Test
...
Figure 4: Graylist Score
3. Security Considerations
This draft does not address the inherent security risks associated
with communicating SPAM information in the clear as it is assumed
that owing to the prior relationship betweent the sending and
receiving parties there is a scure infrastructure in place (e.g.
TLS) for the message transfer.
4. Acknowledgements
TBD.
5. IANA Considerations
None. This document is informational
6. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[I-D.wing-sipping-spam-score]
Wing, D., Niccolini, S., Stiemerling, M., and H.
Tschofenig, "Spam Score for SIP",
draft-wing-sipping-spam-score-02 (work in progress),
February 2008.
Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008
Author's Address
David Schwartz
XConnect Global Networks
Malcha Technology Park
Building # 1
Jerusalem 90961
Israel
Phone: +972 52 347 4656
Email: dschwartz@xconnect.net
URI: www.xconnect.net
Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 9]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 09:01:59 |