Re: [Ecrit] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-22: (with COMMENT)

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Fri, 20 January 2017 03:16 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 428F6129721; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:16:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <xukwVND9x2L1>
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: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 xukwVND9x2L1; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:16:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BDA912952D; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:16:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.187.125.193] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:12:37 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240605d4a730cfa488@[10.187.125.193]>
In-Reply-To: <148483747797.10305.8523660705109689253.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148483747797.10305.8523660705109689253.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:15:55 -0800
To: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
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/Sen9d3_JM2cpXPjzUCZNUfgKcqk>
Cc: ecrit-chairs@ietf.org, ecrit@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash@ietf.org, allison.mankin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-22: (with COMMENT)
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, 20 Jan 2017 03:16:02 -0000

Hi Stephen,

I added additional text to the Security Considerations pointing out 
that some actions are riskier than others, and reiterating that 
vehicles can decline requests for whatever reason, and mentioning 
some potential policy choices.  Note that the existing text already 
pointed out that vehicles could refuse a request if it wasn't signed 
by an acceptable emergency services certificate.

At 6:51 AM -0800 1/19/17, Stephen Farrell wrote:

>  Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>  draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-22: No Objection
>
>  When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>  email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>  introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>  Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>  for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>  The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash/
>
>
>
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  COMMENT:
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>  A phone call that can unlock the doors and turn on an in-car
>  camera. What could possibly go wrong? I think the security
>  considerations ought warn more specifically about the
>  consequences of these options.  This is not a discuss as I
>  assume that these features are required by US regulators, and
>  so cannot be removed.  If they were under IETF control, I'd
>  want to DISCUSS removing them entirely as I suspect that the
>  overall cost/benefit of these features would imply we'd be
>  better off without them.
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ecrit mailing list
>  Ecrit@ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well.
    --Joe Ancis