[Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall progressing to state "Submitted to IESG for Publication"
Ivo Sedlacek <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com> Mon, 28 November 2016 10:23 UTC
Return-Path: <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com>
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 E30DC129A54 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 02:23:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.onmicrosoft.com
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 hCiykWycqarv for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 02:23:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AAF4129B88 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 02:07:55 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-ec9d598000007ee2-1d-583c01f9977d
Received: from ESESSHC013.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.57]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F7.F7.32482.9F10C385; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:07:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (153.88.183.145) by oa.msg.ericsson.com (153.88.183.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:07:50 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ericsson-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=FUMddqPA8Y48iMCaXwxqh7DW1Rqhv/dFbI8g29j3IPc=; b=eQzWBCyhj5nAmty9/dBbPanwIbfko6+x+JxLCJbseSTMnOslszQ32stl/P9/eMOPNgC/kaftUuVgGgOcS9HGNKcBl2LcPR93oxYT1OG4KwpYo32sDyJgynee454EnEvrGhDgX9WTsKUxNxBTdleacCiEKQG9HjkD8kQ90N2k19o=
Received: from AM5PR0701MB2468.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.169.153.136) by AM5PR0701MB2466.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.169.153.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.761.5; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:07:49 +0000
Received: from AM5PR0701MB2468.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.153.136]) by AM5PR0701MB2468.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.153.136]) with mapi id 15.01.0761.009; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:07:49 +0000
From: Ivo Sedlacek <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com>
To: "ecrit@ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall progressing to state "Submitted to IESG for Publication"
Thread-Index: AdJFbsXsFLqBou5eRfmZkKIHQi68XQD77loQ
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:07:49 +0000
Message-ID: <AM5PR0701MB246818833BDFCDA9E5AB9876E58A0@AM5PR0701MB2468.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM5PR0701MB2468062E91B51B26AC2396DBE5B70@AM5PR0701MB2468.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM5PR0701MB2468062E91B51B26AC2396DBE5B70@AM5PR0701MB2468.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [193.179.210.162]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 57776c04-42cb-42af-6eba-08d41776688c
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2466;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0701MB2466; 7:izgR8lnxYa7d3gxCwG96N5NvpA04L7PDi+G4OgpOXkmtgUVijkurKSpdOT6fgzLcTq1dKtEwvJq1H6MWiWoXIEsizO9B0qG0MMvdvY/nTl7TARWj+RrwuFQK+PhFXu+02gUCd8fFVvpXJBkFlR/mA7JNSURm5GR4oQV1oxO2V4qLNP8db7gKqIp8TOC8MLPh9P1cLOBUnDb2zVtS6MSkqtMU2JwvIMqZkYGURkdptvzd7fhnvXDNNKbLaRbxvZIRM2LoHjqq3CdXPCTCxSaMJ/f0ZSARg4+VSbAmUpBeo9Sc8oQZex8ehhrUiO4XHsb2Ch9ixszEDWJZYTF3QAAetq66oH3sdoCZQuTlHhKS+CywDSh/s4hpHcoXOKiDtnXbQOLHXrn0z6Lt8XiujoiP4pzFbndawalVP4FcH67CEzoKd40RnUMLLMAt3G01cwu3F90rzldEOSWzWj7tU07tUA==
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM5PR0701MB2466BD6F7C56AA10A901FC58E58A0@AM5PR0701MB2466.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(102415395)(6060326)(6040361)(6045199)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041248)(6061324)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025); SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2466; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2466;
x-forefront-prvs: 01401330D1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(7916002)(189002)(199003)(77096006)(3280700002)(39450400002)(74316002)(9686002)(7846002)(7736002)(5640700001)(102836003)(6116002)(3846002)(76576001)(7696004)(110136003)(8936002)(107886002)(105586002)(68736007)(81166006)(92566002)(2900100001)(81156014)(5660300001)(189998001)(106356001)(1730700003)(66066001)(8676002)(305945005)(230783001)(39410400001)(39380400001)(5890100001)(2501003)(38730400001)(99936001)(97736004)(101416001)(6506003)(450100001)(39400400001)(54356999)(3660700001)(2906002)(2950100002)(6916009)(2351001)(122556002)(86362001)(50986999)(76176999)(33656002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2466; H:AM5PR0701MB2468.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_AM5PR0701MB246818833BDFCDA9E5AB9876E58A0AM5PR0701MB2468_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Nov 2016 10:07:49.2004 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0701MB2466
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA02Te0xTdxTHc+6jvRCb3BWQE+SPpQMfOHEyQ0SNcXExuMRMY4KNMZEqN4Ar LWnRiYkGcHUIoqBtDDdOCzMTsSjUmolaFcaY9dGI9ckwvHwiCwxhUhm49v5+Lv73+Z7zveee c+65Aqt9oY4Tck0FksVkMOpUkVy1/te0eUFYqv/CUTZnUXHtM345pJ84EWTWwIbIpVmSMXe7 ZJm/LDMyp7b6qjrfl7Wj/WwJVwTjGWUQIaC4EAdv/8CUQaSgFc8ABi5cBiKuAz6q6WTDghMr WKw8fIMjGZnBvqEeCD+vFW8BOrxCmFViMlZ52vgwR4uJ2HjrlOKJErOxoaaHI3Ej1rnfqwin 4Pg7hzrMXMh/8noDG2aNmIl9zSM8qZ+JA55OJswRogFf1Y0oDOJ0fHvDpTArxmLn0+MMmSca eztuqgjH4Kv+KZ74N+L78jc8iX+GnkNDLOHVuGdiPOQXQvwtPn+4joQPcFh1dSZhMwZ6PUA4 CUvbZGVdKJ5mUH7WROvE45+ubp4kbCrscBZzZAAJTzbY6CLi8Mm9fZTj8WWXl6+E2fJHMxDO xdJ/qlWysotP0Ff9lCPxz9F5aURFeC7+UvOaJRyP5xz7QA69mxVtgO2To2pZ+VJNDF7bX8kT 4WCwt7uLJeIwg4E3Pfz/tgdVXoYIO4PvevupaASsuPSI2g4wOOVvBVoA8G7LGLW5AMsH/qal OwCHX9ip7SyD9pJw/7Ta2HknzfwBWNrwF80cDfXm91FxE7DS9lCZ+cNNycq9rMWKI4N0R4no L+5XPFFiOv44cZt6VuGT4CGG8Aa88q8XiGcmVtw9o5aVW0vAvqISut9MbHHYaeduFsfayzgn rKiHGKtk3ZyXnfJlsmTJ3WK1mk3JJqnADaFfrsUzkXgBAoNftYIogG6aZnh0sV7LG7ZbC/Na ISHUXF/j6TsQx5nMJkkXrUmdWqLXarIMhTsli3mTZZtRsrbCDIHTxWpST3Wv14rZhgLpO0nK lywfsowQEVcEBcz3bsdo/CxnHr+1bcEOLmPlcP6WJdeihicPzv7JtXvR1mVDpjVTj9mE5j0D SZMr3PX9v91p+nSGX/da4zBs2h+Rwo3qLcVc8FjthL3x95c539xPNx6dy3Ytn4OpNrPPuPdt eUvaff/FmI3Ni+t23dtVX/jz3qKA05vmGgv6YoNf6zhrjmFBEmuxGv4DpfOqdXoEAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/LWZVBkkRYdbozzblTW9Ph0Y30oc>
Subject: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall progressing to state "Submitted to IESG for Publication"
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: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:23:20 -0000
Hello, I noticed that WG state of draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall changed to "Submitted to IESG for Publication" despite a comment (ISSUE 7 in the attached) raised during WGLC was not resolved, even though the issue was confirmed by other people and even though it was requested that the issue is solved before publication request. I am formally objecting to this state change. Kind regards Ivo Sedlacek
--- Begin Message ---Randall, I identified a technical problem ("attach X to SIP message" is not defined) during WGLC. You did not solve the technical problem during WGLC. Paul's mail from 1st Nov somehow confirms that there can be different interpretations and something needs to be done ("It needs to be defined in detail for each case."). I proposed a possible solution in the updated draft. You do not like the solution but have not proposed any other solution till now. The technical problem is still unresolved. I think I have done my duty and it is time for chairs to settle what to do. Now in details to your answers: > > 1) rfc7852 defines "conveying" of data (not "attaching" data): > > ------------------- > > When an emergency call is sent to a Public Safety Answering Point > > (PSAP), the originating device, the access network provider to which > > the device is connected, and all service providers in the path of the > > call have information about the call, the caller, or the location, > > which is helpful for the PSAP to have in handling the emergency. > > This document describes data structures and mechanisms to **convey such > > data** to the PSAP. The intent is that every emergency call carry as > > much of the information described here as possible using the > > mechanisms described here. > > > > The mechanisms permit the data to be **conveyed** by reference (as an > > external resource) or by value (within the body of a SIP message or a > > location object). This follows the tradition of prior emergency > > services standardization work where data can be conveyed by value > > within the call signaling (i.e., in the body of the SIP message) or > > by reference. > > ------------------- > > so I use "convey" when introducing rfc7852 in eCall draft. > > RFC 7852 discusses equally sending data with the call and sending a reference > to data that is available externally, hence the use of the neutral term > "conveyance." I think using "conveyance" in the eCall draft would be less > well understood by the average reader than using "attach." The term "attach" > seems pretty generally well understood, and the current language in the draft > makes it very clear exactly what steps are performed. "attach X to SIP message" is NOT defined anywhere and thus the standard is NOT clear. The nearest interpretation of "attach X to SIP message" is "include a body part containing X with Content-Disposition: attachment in SIP message", which does not work with the draft. > > Moreover, given that rfc7852 does not use "attach" data, eCall draft > > should be able to live without "attach" data too. > > > > 2) I *think* the intention of "attach" in the draft is to refer to > > "block transmitted by value" as described in rfc7852 section 6.1 the > > last paragraph 1st sentence: > > ------------------- > > When blocks are transmitted by value, the 'purpose' parameter in a > > Call-Info header field identifies the data, and the CID URL points to > > the data block in the body (which has a matching Content-ID body part > > header field). > > ------------------- > > So I use "block transmitted by value" everywhere in eCall draft with > > exception identified in 3) below. > > That seems more confusing to use in the eCall draft, since eCall data is not > transmitted by reference. "block transmitted by value" is defined in rfc7852. How can it be confusing to use that term together with referencing rfc7852??? "attach X to SIP message" is NOT defined anywhere. Can usage of a defined term be more confusing than usage of an undefined term??? Kind regards Ivo _______________________________________________ Ecrit mailing list Ecrit@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit--- End Message ---
- [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall progr… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall p… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall p… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall p… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall p… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall p… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall p… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall p… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall p… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall p… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall p… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall p… Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall p… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Ecrit] Objection to draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall p… Ivo Sedlacek