[Ecrit] comments on draft-barnes-ecrit-auth-00

[Jonathan Rosenberg <[e-mail]>]

If my understanding is correct, the primary problem being addressed here 
is dealing with malicious callers that try and send emergency calls that 
are not really emergency calls. Is that correct? Furthermore, I think 
the fundamental assumption you are making is that a call is considered a 
valid emergency call if its routing will cause it to arrive at a PSAP. 
Consequently, the primary threat that is being addressed here are users 
that label calls as emergency calls, in order to get some kind of 
specialized treatment, but the calls don't go to a PSAP, but rather go 
to a friend or colleague. Is that correct? If so, you need to discuss 
this. The threat model here was very unclear.

I'll note that this problem goes away if the VSP performs the location 
to PSAP mapping, not the UA. You might want to mention this as another 
solution.

Section 2.2 - why does the identity of the caller, as asserted by the 
called party, indicate that this is an emergency call? I'd think you 
really want an assertion of role of the connected party - i.e., the 200 
OK response to a call to a PSAP has a SAML document that attests that 
this 'user' is a PSAP.

The draft talks about "authenticating" emergency services calls, but 
this term is not correct here. Authentication is establishment of 
identity of the originator of a message. That is not what we are doing 
here. I think this draft is about verification that a call is an 
emergency call.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[e-mail]                              FAX:   [phone]
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: [phone]
http://www.cisco.com

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit