1. TIPHON LI implications Scott Cadzow

2. Architecture

3. TIPHON work Actions from TC SEC LI –Evaluate the need for a session protocol –Define transition from ROSE to either FPT with IP stack, or ROSE with IP stack. Internal actions –Define TIPHON specific data in ASN.1 –Define abstract interception flows to MF

4. LI Requirement On TIPHON –No local storage of Intercept records (HI2) and traffic (HI3) –Real time delivery of Intercept records and traffic On LEA –Always on intercept record and traffic acceptance

5. Further requirements Standardisation –Existing standards available in existing products Security –Protection from DNS attack on public interface –Trusted staff in the TIPHON operator environment –Target shall not be identifiable by other (traffic) analysis

6. FTP versus ROSE FTP is in favour with LEAs –Favour is accorded by economics –Simple (quick) to implement ROSE supported by application builders –An application of a Remote Procedure Call (RPC) –Abstract specification –Requires application to make sense of the data

7. LI in TIPHON Known target standard = ES 201 671 Abstract data already described –GSM, TETRA and ES 201 671 in ASN.1 Target discovery to be described Identify signalling mapping to record type –BEGIN, END, CONTINUE