Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT

Bernard, 

could you clarify your comment regarding the relation of femtocells to
the unauthenticated draft? It is correct that some femtocell
configurations are considered an issue for emergency access, but I am
not sure which relation to unauthenticated you are pointing at.

Thanks,

Dirk

From: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of ext Bernard Aboba
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 7:26 PM
To: mlinsner@cisco.com; ecrit@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT

My humble suggestion is that draft-rosen-ecrit-additional-data is both
straightforward and highly beneficial.  While IETF tradition would
suggest that items with such a high benefit/cost ratio should be delayed
indefinitely or abandoned in favor of items that are more intractable,
I'd suggest a concession to common sense in this isolated instance.

Of course, in order to ensure that the WG does not debase itself in an
orgy of productivity, tradition requires that the WG take on a number of
work items which are "hard" only because the wrong questions are being
asked.   I'd assert that both Unauthenticated Access and PSAP callback
fall in this category.   

Unauthenticated Access is "hard" because it represents a solution
without a real problem.  There is no regulatory requirement for this
today, nor is there likely to be one in the near future because the
"solution" would itself be a problem and because technology such as
femtocells will make the "problem" disappear in due course.

PSAP Callback is "hard" largely because of the disconnect between the
PSTN way of thinking and the reality of VOIP, which will result in
extended (and largely fruitless) "discussions", until the passage of the
leaves the obvious solution in plain view, like a whale washed up on the
beach.  Serializing other work items until this "hard" problem is
"solved" will essentially cause them to wait in the queue until our
teeth are but a memory. 

> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:19:50 -0400
> From: mlinsner@cisco.com
> To: ecrit@ietf.org
> Subject: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT
> 
> During the meeting last week the following drafts were discussed in
the
> context of accepting them as WG items.
> 
> draft-rosen-ecrit-additional-data
> draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-psap-callback
> draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-unauthenticated-access
> draft-tschofenig-ecrit-trustworthy-location
> draft-rosen-ecrit-data-only-ea
> 
> The chairs and ADs have reviewed the level of interest in these,
compared
> the work to the current charter and believe these fit within the scope
of
> ECRIT.
> 
> We asked during the meeting if anyone objects to accepting any or all
of
> these drafts as WG items. So, now, we're asking on the list.
> 
> If you object to any of these drafts becoming WG items, please explain
if
> you think the work is something ECRIT should not do, or if you simply
have
> problems with current version of the particular draft. No response is
a
> show of support for all of this work.
> 
> Once the above question is answered, the chairs will devise a work
plan to
> finish the accepted work.
> 
> Also discussed in the meeting was the priority order of getting these
drafts
> completed, and it was the general feeling that psap-callback,
> unauthenticated-access, and trustworthy-location were the most
difficult and
> would take more time. Of those three the general feeling was the
> psap-callback was the highest priority. If you have an opinion on
which
> draft should completed first, please send it to the list.
> 
> Please respond by COB on Wednesday, 8/11/2010 if you have objections
to any
> of this work, or you have strong feelings on the priority of the work.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Marc, Richard, Roger-
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit