Re: [Ecrit] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ecrit-psap-callback-10
Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Sun, 29 September 2013 15:16 UTC
Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
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 D252021F9DCE for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 qBqGsfXTI8IE for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 273BC21F92B5 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.62] ([88.114.26.32]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LedVG-1WCLP12YcI-00qOud for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:16:45 +0200
Message-ID: <5248445C.1000105@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 18:16:44 +0300
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
References: <523C783A.6070502@bell-labs.com> <52443519.5020502@gmx.net> <52445E66.2080805@bell-labs.com> <5245D30A.8090406@gmx.net> <5245D9BF.6090408@bell-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <5245D9BF.6090408@bell-labs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:/wNJEsd/drhGP6ziRZe4dRxQJ2Qvb7fupYv3OGX6SdIQLEt7SbO QRI13HwS8z20W2wpj3OhnNnwvnokpiWEUFRcVlt0DdHTyykrFHd7+FVGQ3pd0HCP6M+7ht0 ySErmRAkZq3LpSFh4UlW/3m/fpQKYX9ix/LMJ3IxLsui57iP00Z9JNZHoaiJjC3Mq7i91Ys gZHJ+EuuUYIHwYS3o3TUw==
Cc: marc.linsner@cisco.com, "ecrit@ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ecrit-psap-callback@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ecrit-psap-callback-10
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: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:16:54 -0000
Hi Vijay, thanks for the time to review the document so carefully. I have just submitted an updated version and I indeed think that your review feedback has improved the quality of the document. Ciao Hannes On 27.09.2013 22:17, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > Hannes: > > I am happy with the changes outlined below. I am convinced they > make the document better. Thank you for attending to my comments. > > On 09/27/2013 01:48 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >> Hi Vijay, >> >> I updated the draft to take your remarks into account. >> >> I liked the security requirements text to the security threats section, >> as you suggested. >> >> I believe you have a point regarding the remark about the security >> solution. The current description focuses on the PSAP but not on the UA. >> I assumed that we essentially inherit the functionality from the >> PhoneBCP document but that should be expressed somewhere. >> >> So, I added the following section to the draft: >> >> ---- >> >> The approach for dealing with implementing the security requirements >> described in Section 5.2 can be differentiated between the behavior >> applied by the UA and by SIP proxies. A UA that has made an >> emergency call will keep state information so that it can recognize >> and accepted a callback from the PSAP if it occurs within a >> reasonable time after an emergency call was placed, as described in >> Section 13 of [RFC6443]. Since UA considerations are described >> already in [RFC6443] as well as in [RFC6881] the rest of this section >> focuses on the behavior of SIP proxies. >> >> ----- >> >> What do you think about that addition? Do you think it addresses your >> concern? > > Cheers, > > - vijay
- Re: [Ecrit] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ecrit-ps… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Ecrit] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ecrit-ps… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Ecrit] [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-iet… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Ecrit] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ecrit-ps… Hannes Tschofenig