[Dime] late comments Re: Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02
Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csgov.com> Wed, 30 December 2015 19:26 UTC
Return-Path: <jgunn6@csgov.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBF31AC3CE for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:26:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.598
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FoymE5Leak_K for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:26:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Spam2.csgov.com (unknown [209.135.214.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1B031ACE08 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:26:07 -0800 (PST)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1451503566-0a652e175f251af0001-ygad4l
Received: from csgsmtp01.csgov.com (csgsmtp01.csgov.com [192.168.16.27]) by Spam2.csgov.com with ESMTP id aWrdGG68ecFPTAgh; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:26:06 -0500 (EST)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: jgunn6@csgov.com
In-Reply-To: <18555_1450866365_567A76BD_18555_7990_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E01D93ACB@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <18555_1450866365_567A76BD_18555_7990_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E01D93ACB@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
X-Disclaimed: 60490
To: lionel.morand@orange.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 2E55A025:4F5710CD-85257F2B:006A631D; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: late comments Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.2FP4 SHF97 March 26, 2012
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csgov.com>
Message-ID: <OF2E55A025.4F5710CD-ON85257F2B.006A631D-85257F2B.006AC1FC@csgov.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:26:09 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CSGSMTP01/SRV/CSGov(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 12/30/2015 02:25:16 PM, Serialize complete at 12/30/2015 02:25:16 PM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 006AC1A685257F2B_="
X-Barracuda-Connect: csgsmtp01.csgov.com[192.168.16.27]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1451503566
X-Barracuda-URL: https://192.168.16.52:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at csgov.com
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.25697 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/zjQgVZVQRJxO-MftrEWJ2ALfk9I>
Cc: DiME <dime-bounces@ietf.org>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: [Dime] late comments Re: Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:26:10 -0000
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. --- 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. --- 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. --- 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.” 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: <lionel.morand@orange.com> To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org> Date: 12/23/2015 05:26 AM Subject: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02 Sent by: "DiME" <dime-bounces@ietf.org> 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 DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
- [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-… lionel.morand
- [Dime] late comments Re: Start of the WGLC on dra… Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Dime] late comments Re: Start of the WGLC on… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-d… A. Jean Mahoney
- Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-d… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] late comments Re: Start of the WGLC on… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-d… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-d… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-d… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-d… A. Jean Mahoney
- Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-d… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-d… A. Jean Mahoney
- Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-d… Steve Donovan