Re: [Dime] late comments Re: Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02

[Steve Donovan <[e-mail]>]

Janet,

Thanks for the review.

See my comments inline.

Regards,

Steve

On 12/30/15 1:26 PM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
> A couple of late comments-
>
> I thought I had commented on this before (in the first draft), but 
> maybe it got lost.
>
> In sec 5.1 it says:
>
>    The United States Wireless Priority Services (WPS) and Government
>    Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) are examples of systems
>    designed to address these first responder needs.
>
> But this is not accurate.  GETS and WPS are used by the First 
> Responder “Command/Management”, but NOT by the First Responder “Rank 
> and File”.
>
> The web pages for WPS  ( 
> http://www.dhs.gov/wireless-priority-service-wps) and GETS ( 
> _http://www.dhs.gov/government-emergency-telecommunications-service-gets_) 
> say that typical users are “responsible for the command and control 
> functions critical to management of and response to national security 
> and emergency situations, particularly during the first 24 to 72 hours 
> following an event.”
>
> So the Fire  Chief might use WPS/GETS to call the local hospital (or 
> an individual firefighter), or the hospital administrator might use 
> WPS/GETS to call the State Health Department (or an individual 
> doctor), but individual  firefighters would not use WPS/GETS to call 
> each other.
>
> You might want to contact the ECRIT working group for examples of 
> priority systems that DO support the front-line  firefighters, etc.
>
> My suggestion for rewording the paragraph is
>
>    The United States Wireless Priority Services (WPS) and Government
>    Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) are examples of systems
>    designed to address the command and control aspects of these first
>    responder needs.
>
SRD> Change made.
> ---
>
> For section 5.2 Emergency Call Related Signaling, I would also suggest 
> that you coordinate with ECRIT for appropriate wording.  In the “911” 
> world, the bottleneck (scarce resource) is the people to answer the 
> phone.  Sometimes it is counterproductive to improve the probability 
> of success earlier in the call path, as it makes the congestion at the 
> PSAP itself worse.
>
SRD> We can pass this by ECRIT but this isn't just about making the 
calls setup faster, it is about helping to ensure that it is successful 
in the first place, especially in the face of an overloaded network.
> ---
>
> Security
> I am not a security expert, but I expect the security section needs to 
> be beefed up.  As it says in  RFC4412:
>
>
>    Any resource priority mechanism can be abused to obtain resources and
>    thus deny service to other users.  An adversary may be able to take
>    over a particular PSTN gateway, cause additional congestion during
>    emergencies affecting the PSTN, or deny service to legitimate users.
>    In SIP end systems, such as IP phones, this mechanism could
>    inappropriately terminate existing sessions and calls.
>
>    Thus, while the indication itself does not have to provide separate
>    authentication, SIP requests containing this header are very likely
>    to have higher authentication requirements than those without.
>
> I would expect similar verbiage would be appropriate for Diameter.
>
SRD> Agreed, I'll proposed a beefed up security section.
> ---
>
> Editorial nit
>  In the introduction, I think that this sentence
>    “As such, all requests are treated the same meaning that all 
> requests have the same probability of being  throttled.”
> Would read better with a comma
>    “As such, all requests are treated the same, meaning that all 
> requests have the same probability of being  throttled.”
SRD> Agreed.
>
>
> Happy New Year everyone,
>
> Janet
>
>
> This electronic message transmission contains information from CSRA 
> that may be attorney-client privileged, proprietary or confidential. 
> The information in this message is intended only for use by the 
> individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you have 
> received this message in error, please contact me immediately and be 
> aware that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the 
> contents of this message is strictly prohibited. NOTE: Regardless of 
> content, this email shall not operate to bind CSRA to any order or 
> other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or 
> government initiative expressly permitting the use of email for such 
> purpose.
>
>
>
> From: <[e-mail]>
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Date: 12/23/2015 05:26 AM
> Subject: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02
> Sent by: "DiME" <[e-mail]>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> As agreed during the Dime session at IETF94, a Working Group Last Call 
> is asked on the following document:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02
>
> Please respond to this email to support the document and/or send 
> comments by 2016-01-20.
>
> As this WGLC is initiated during the Xmas/end-of-year break, the WGLC 
> period is extended to 4 weeks.
> For reviewer of the document, don't forget to state if you are fine 
> with the document even if there is no comment. It is important for 
> evaluating the quality of the document and gauge the WG consensus.
>
> In addition, following the strategy for promoting compliance with the 
> IPR disclosure rules (RFC6702), the chairs would like to check 
>  whether there are claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the 
> document that need to be disclosed. Therefore, the following questions 
> are addressed to the WG and Especially Authors and Contributors of the 
> draft:
>
> * Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to 
> draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in 
> compliance with IETF IPR rules?  (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 
>  for more details.)
>
> * If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document, 
> please reply to this email message regardless of whether or not you 
> are personally aware of any relevant IPR.  We might not be able to 
> advance this document to the next stage until we have received a reply 
> from each author and listed contributor.
>
> * If you are on the DIME WG email list but are not an author or listed 
> contributor for this document, you are reminded of your opportunity 
> for a voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP 79.  Please do not reply 
>  unless you want to make such a voluntary disclosure.
>
> Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at 
>  <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lionel and Jouni
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez 
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les 
> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, 
> deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
> privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and 
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have 
> been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime