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

Alissa Cooper <> Fri, 16 December 2016 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBBD212966A for <>; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 06:14:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=20/ok+kM; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=RdvHHu3T
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01CSURRpNWrH for <>; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 06:14:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE506129DE2 for <>; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 06:14:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F86C208DF; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 09:14:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 16 Dec 2016 09:14:05 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=pPjq4sKuNBP8A9G GBkmJggktBQs=; b=20/ok+kM2lz7DoU0M8Wv+2Gzy9lPqL+idrFX6vsiNF/vWb1 M2PlbK+TPCqbBs1OjX9CLD4ORLmbI6OHaQb7bqgeY3jidm2oALCjUr82M6JUtzpG LZkjhd/SqmbMmzl4ejrfg7MWGYVr5VoN7GBp1C/Q6ceiyW39ahoS2Rj7RAng=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= smtpout; bh=pPjq4sKuNBP8A9GGBkmJggktBQs=; b=RdvHHu3Tefk8VXLxYUHq l54U/EzolpaAFNrV69bPVFUU3jIWEWGRdFfvWaPBQZTyZUKJ2iOPonnuOSOmRft/ mts/02uDPE13ZoOT+N+n/S427Fo9GtUoMVfDcgFxYYPlrnxFe+TfQ3HdvwYTehss ZYvnIKP9uCwK10865Uk0pok=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:rPZTWC_ZvwOXBONHd1gW0PwDLS9puPwNFoFpQo-n6sMckpZkerFM-g>
X-Sasl-enc: IBRKbP0M/ioO4GRJ5oOQidr5K+q0flt0LVe6BrlOGbdV 1481897644
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A85A52452C; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 09:14:04 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <>
In-Reply-To: <p06240600d4737cf1d1ac@[]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 09:14:04 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <p06240600d4737cf1d1ac@[]>
To: Randall Gellens <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies Discussion List <>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-19
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:14:07 -0000

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 <> 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.

>> = 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.