Re: [Ecrit] Charter & Milestones update - Comments sought

Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com> Mon, 21 October 2013 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@qti.qualcomm.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 C8BD611E8437 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.294
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.294 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.847, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v9eILcT6lTeO for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2FFC11E83AA for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1382377690; x=1413913690; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:to:from:subject: cc:mime-version; bh=x0z8PlRiYy/vpAg6cW+1A1MiVQWuFChdGSQnMrzSOAI=; b=e9VDCTa8J8arn3wNJVh1x3TO2J05PbOR86mNO5T2pm9qJhBcXcvhD7I9 VdJAqx0C6Yi/5phUscK2o2Wadm7w35FxA0HyHRQ6E1r6JZcCThZklgfAj 2vY9RIrwACJ/DzKMRAZ1lRo9zbN7RygTKBPPJ6dvB3TkYnm5CWOJ/vj97 Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7235"; a="82318694"
Received: from ironmsg02-lv.qualcomm.com ([10.47.202.183]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2013 10:47:51 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7235"; a="21623997"
Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by ironmsg02-lv.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 21 Oct 2013 10:47:50 -0700
Received: from [99.111.97.136] (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:47:50 -0700
Message-ID: <p06240604ce8b16239896@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgRyXMNxe-UPPFBkJtDM2UeZjgardeTeXAy9TbbU2SuWWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FBD5AAFFD0978846BF6D3FAB4C892ACC45811B@SEA-EXMB-1.telecomsys.com> <p06240602ce78cc3a5e0a@10.184.126.229> <FBD5AAFFD0978846BF6D3FAB4C892ACC484ED7@SEA-EXMB-1.telecomsys.com> <p06240601ce8b1354f008@99.111.97.136> <CAL02cgRyXMNxe-UPPFBkJtDM2UeZjgardeTeXAy9TbbU2SuWWg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:47:47 -0700
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
From: Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5]
Cc: "ecrit_ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Charter & Milestones update - Comments sought
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 21 Oct 2013 17:49:05 -0000

Re: [Ecrit] Charter & Milestones update - Comments sought
Hi Richard,

I don't what what the phrase "useful regardless of jurisdiction" is supposed to mean in this context, and I'm concerned that it might be interpreted to mean that work needed for, e.g., eCall that is intended for use within the E.U. is out of scope.  Likewise for work intended for NENA's needs.  I agree that we don't want to do work that *can't* be used broadly on the Internet, but that's different than prohibiting work *intended* (at least initially) for use within a particular continent.  I suppose we could say "potentially useful" instead of just "useful" to make it clear that the prohibition is only on what the work *could* be used for, and not what it is initially intended for use for.  I still think we could just delete the sentence, since I don't see the group in danger of doing work that can't be broadly used.

To me, the phrase "it must be possible to use without requiring a single, central authority" seems intended to limit the work that became LosT, to try and avoid creating an LDAP-type situation that required a global root.

At 8:29 PM +0300 10/21/13, Richard Barnes wrote:

Could you explain more why that sentence is problematic?  After all, our job here is to design things for the whole Internet; work that is only useful to a given jurisdiction should be done there.

That's not to say that the general work can't be based on locality-specific work, and done at the same time -- RFC 6881 is arguably a generalization of a part of the NENA system.  But what's done in the IETF needs to remain general.

--Richard


On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
Hi Roger,

I suggest deleting:

        "any solution presented must be useful regardless of jurisdiction, and it must be possible to use without requiring a single, central authority"

The text seems to me to be more applicable to the solution that became LoST.  As such, I don't think it serves any purpose now.

     


At 5:10 PM +0000 10/21/13, Roger Marshall wrote:

Randy:
I'm not sure what you're proposing as a change to the text.
 
I agree that the present text has some history in pre-LoST, but I don't think its inclusion limits what you are suggesting, (ACN or pan-EU emergency calling).
 
-roger.
 
From: Randall Gellens [mailto:randy@qti.qualcomm.com]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 1:46 PM
To: Roger Marshall; http://ecrit_ietf.org" rel="nofollow">ecrit_ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Charter & Milestones update - Comments sought
 
I realize some of this language is a holdover from our very early days when we weren't sure which way we could go for things which became LoST, for example.  Still, I'm not sure exactly what "any solution presented must be useful regardless of jurisdiction, and it must be possible to use without requiring a single, central authority" mean today.  In one sense, everything we do has dependency on jurisdiction, because not all jurisdictions will migrate to next-generation at the same time.  A SIP-based emergency call won't work in a legacy emergency call jurisdiction.
 
We want to be sure that we can work on generic ACN and pan-Europen eCall.
 
 
At 6:18 PM +0000 10/4/13, Roger Marshall wrote:
 
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
     boundary="_000_FBD5AAFFD0978846BF6D3FAB4C892ACC45811BSEAEXMB1telecomsy_"
The ECRIT working group agreed that the chairs would propose updated language to the wg charter, along with milestone data changes.
 
Compare this to the original charter found at: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/charters" rel="nofollow"> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/charters.
 
Please send your comments to the list, whether in favor, or with alternative wording and/or dates.
 
Regards,
 
Roger Marshall/Marc Linsner
ECRIT Chairs
 
ECRIT charter (w/proposed revisions):

 
Description of Working Group:
 
    In a number of areas, the public switched telephone network (PSTN) has
    been configured to recognize an explicitly specified number (usually
    one that is short and easily memorized) as a request for emergency
    services.  These numbers (e.g., 911, 112) are related to an emergency
    service context and depend on a broad, regional configuration of
    service contact methods and a geographically-constrained approach for
    service delivery.  These calls are intended to be delivered to special
    call centers equipped to manage emergency response. Successful
    delivery of an emergency service call within those systems requires
    an association of both the physical location of the originating device
    along with appropriate call routing to an emergency service center.
 
    Calls placed using Internet technologies do not use the same systems
    Mentioned above to achieve those same goals, and the common use of
    overlay networks and tunnels (either as VPNs or for mobility) makes
    meeting these goals even more challenging.  There are, however,
    Internet technologies available to manage location and to perform call
    routing.  This working group will describe where and how these mechanisms
    may be used. The group will show how the availability of location data
    and call routing information at different steps in the call session
    setup would enable communication between a user and a relevant emergency
    response center. Though the term "call routing" is used in this document,
    it should be understood that some of the mechanisms which will be
    described might be used to enable other types of media streams. Video
    and text messaging, for example, might be used to request emergency

    services.
 
    Beyond human initiated emergency call request mechanisms, this group will
    develop new methods to request emergency assistance, such as sensor
    initiated emergency requests, and additional processes specified that
    address topics such as authentication of location, service URN definition
    and use, augmented information that could assist emergency call takers or
    responders.
 
    Explicitly outside the scope of this group is the question of
    pre-emption or prioritization of emergency services traffic. This
    group is considering emergency services calls which might be made by
    any user of the Internet, as opposed to government or military
    services that may impose very different authentication and routing
    requirements.
 
    While this group anticipates a close working relationship with groups
    such as NENA and ETSI EMTEL, any solution presented must be useful
    regardless of jurisdiction, and it must be possible to use without requiring a
    single, central authority.  Further, it must be possible for multiple
    delegations within a jurisdiction to be handled independently, as call
    routing for specific emergency types may be handled independently.
 
    This working group cares about privacy and security concerns, and will
    address them within its documents.
 
 
Milestones w/revised status/dates, as proposed
 
Done - Submit 'Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Callbacks' to the IESG
for consideration as an Informational RFC
 
Nov 2013 - Submit 'Trustworthy Location Information' to the IESG for
consideration as an Informational RFC
 
Dec 2013 - Submit 'Additional Data related to a Call for Emergency Call
Purposes' to the IESG for consideration as a Standards Track RFC
 
Nov 2013 - Submit 'Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) based Data-Only
Emergency Alerts using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' to the IESG for consideration as an
Experimental RFC
 
Dec 2013 - Submit 'Extensions to the Emergency Services Architecture for
dealing with Unauthenticated and Unauthorized Devices' to the IESG for consideration
as a Standards Track RFC
 
Dec 2013 - Submit a draft 'Policy for defining new service-identifying
labels' to the IESG for consideration as BCP

 
Mar 2014 - Submit 'Using Imprecise Location for Emergency Call Routing'
to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC
 
Dec 2013 - Submit a draft 'URN For Country Specific Emergency Services'
to the IESG for consideration as a Standards Track RFC
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and network.

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
 
 
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
       --Judge Sotomayor


--
 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------

The budget should be balanced.  The treasury should be refilled.
Public debt should be reduced.  The arrogance of public officials
should be controlled.        --Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I have learned
To spell hors d'oeuvres
Which still grates on
Some people's n'oeuvres.
       -- Warren Knox