Feature #4402
closedSpecification: Create draft
100%
Description
Before we implement this in Osmocom, we will create a draft specification.
Based on the approach described in #4400, I've started a specification document in imsi-pseudo.git:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/plugins/gitiles/imsi-pseudo/+/refs/heads/master/docs/
Files
Updated by osmith about 4 years ago
- Status changed from Stalled to In Progress
- % Done changed from 10 to 90
As discussed in the weekly telcos, the draft specification does not need to contain the exact references to ETSI specifications that would need to be changed (unlike I had assumed when creating this issue). So the following document should be enough as draft specification, it describes in detail how the IMSI pseudonymization will work:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/plugins/gitiles/imsi-pseudo/+/refs/heads/master/README.md
laforge: when you have time, can you read through it and confirm that this issue can be closed (that we have completed that milestone)?
Updated by laforge about 4 years ago
- % Done changed from 90 to 50
osmith wrote:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/plugins/gitiles/imsi-pseudo/+/refs/heads/master/README.md
laforge: when you have time, can you read through it and confirm that this issue can be closed (that we have completed that milestone)?
I think this document currently only works for a reader who has a very detailed understanding of what this project is all about before reading it.
I would suggest to- ensure that the document calls itself a specification
- include a specification version, author, date.
- include a status (DRAFT)
- start at a higher level, such as describing how the procedures work in the normal network
- also describe why the transmission of the IMSI over the radio interface (or to the visited operator) is a problem at all (separately for each case)
- include ladder diagrams or other illustrations to show the flow of events
Particularly once you start, I think this really should become an asciidoc document. It also provides the infrastructure for versions/authors/status/...
Furthermore, it has the advantage that we could later merge [parts of] it to the osmo-hlr manual.
Would be good to work on this soon-ish, as we cannot complete our first milestone (and invoice) without it.
Updated by osmith about 4 years ago
- File imsi-pseudo-spec.pdf imsi-pseudo-spec.pdf added
- % Done changed from 50 to 90
I've created the proper specification draft with asciidoc in the git repository, and attached the PDF to this issue.
laforge: please have another look.
Updated by laforge about 4 years ago
Thanks, looks good in general.
I've pushed some minor changes, please review if they seem OK to you.
Some open topics, from my point of view:- we should include reference to the SUCI mechanism in 5G as part of the introduction,
and point out that this specification wants to provide a similar concealment
of the permanent subscriber identity - but for legacy 2G/3G/4G - we shouldn't add GFDL license to the spec. It's not a user manual. I would consider
CC-BY for now. - We should specify that the mechanism works both for classic SIM but also USIM
- We should make it less 2G centric. For example, not just the Kc but also the
keys of other technologies should be removed (EF.KEYS). - We should mention that also the P-TMSI (EF.PS_LOCI) and packet switched keys (EF.KEYS_PS) should
be removed, if present.
Let's address those stated above even in the first draft.
Later on, we should also think of:
- consider which parts we consider mandatory (the general principle) and which
optional (the exact binary format of the SMS, which is just an implementation detail and
doesn't really matter to achieving the desired functionality) - consider how IMSI-pseudo would interact within a combined (2G-4G)+5G network,
whereas the latter already solves the problem by means of the SUCI.
Updated by osmith about 4 years ago
- Subject changed from Create draft specification to Specification: Create draft
laforge wrote:
I've pushed some minor changes, please review if they seem OK to you.
Yes, they are fine.
Some open topics, from my point of view:
[...]
All changes applied, please review again.
Later on, we should also think of:
- consider which parts we consider mandatory (the general principle) and which
optional (the exact binary format of the SMS, which is just an implementation detail and
doesn't really matter to achieving the desired functionality)
=> #4489
- consider how IMSI-pseudo would interact within a combined (2G-4G)+5G network,
whereas the latter already solves the problem by means of the SUCI.
=> #4490
Updated by osmith about 4 years ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
- % Done changed from 90 to 100
Finished draft pdf is linked in the wiki now: https://osmocom.org/projects/imsi-pseudo/wiki
