Re: [Ecrit] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-19

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Fri, 16 December 2016 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5748E129F80 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 07:53:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <fYQJakiQ_dGu>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 fYQJakiQ_dGu for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 07:53:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05BA129EBC for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 07:46:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [99.111.97.136] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Fri, 16 Dec 2016 07:46:10 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624060fd479bae859e2@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <3FF94324-6359-4128-A191-791B27032A3C@cooperw.in>
References: <8079F7B1-F7D3-4250-B453-80B01AD92EC7@cooperw.in> <p06240600d4737cf1d1ac@[99.111.97.136]> <3FF94324-6359-4128-A191-791B27032A3C@cooperw.in>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 07:40:16 -0800
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/EA-eztAQUOxRu-cJdCjnJYe3nLQ>
Cc: Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies Discussion List <ecrit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-19
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:53:05 -0000

At 9:14 AM -0500 12/16/16, Alissa Cooper wrote:

>  Thanks Randy. I think this is ready for last call now. I have a 
> couple of comments below that can be resolved together with last 
> call comments.
>
>>  On Dec 15, 2016, at 7:17 PM, Randall Gellens 
>> <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  = Section 10.1 =
>>>
>>>  I don't understand why support for messages would be assumed to be
>>>  cumulative in the order in which messages end up being registered
>>>  in the registry. Why isn't the case where a vehicle supports
>>>  messages 1, 3, and 5 but not 2 and 4 a possible case?
>>
>>  The expectation is that there will be few static messages; there
>>  isn't a basis for IVS implementations to pick which ones to support,
>>  especially since it is text that is displayed on a screen, so the
>>  complexity of only supporting some messages outweighs the cost of
>>  supporting a set up to a known value.
>
>  It would be helpful to include a sentence similar to the above in 
> the document.

Happy to add text as a Last Call comment.

>   > = Section 10.2 =
>   >
>>>
>>>  (2) It seems to me that the static message with msgid=1 and the
>>>  dynamic message provided here are contradictory. One says that help
>>>  is not on the way and the other says that it is. Why would a PSAP
>>>  send both of these messages?
>>
>>  Static message 1 only says that the PSAP can't accept the voice call
>>  (nothing about sending help or not), so I don't see it as
>>  contradictory. 
>
>  I guess when I read "We will help you as soon as possible" that 
> sounds to me like it could be a long time from now, which is 
> different from "Help is on the way." But I see how others might 
> interpret the first one differently.

I will ask the NENA PSAP OPS committee to review that static message 
and suggest improved wording.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I detest life-insurance agents; they always argue that I shall some
day die, which is not so.
          --Stephen Leacock (1869-1944)
               _Literary Lapses_ (1910)
                 (Insurance up to Date)