Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ecrit-psap-callback-10

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 09 October 2013 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B38321E8159 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, 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 FAikKbbgcCV1 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD6221E8171 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D3A2CCAE; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:49:07 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mdVz0BVczpMV; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:49:07 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C6E2CC48; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:49:07 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <5248445C.1000105@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:49:06 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1F7C5A60-0430-434C-8486-8A8BD1620992@piuha.net>
References: <523C783A.6070502@bell-labs.com> <52443519.5020502@gmx.net> <52445E66.2080805@bell-labs.com> <5245D30A.8090406@gmx.net> <5245D9BF.6090408@bell-labs.com> <5248445C.1000105@gmx.net>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: rmarshall@telecomsys.com, marc.linsner@cisco.com, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ecrit-psap-callback@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ecrit-psap-callback-10
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 18:49:17 -0000

Vijay, thanks for the detailed review and Hannes thanks for the update! I have balloted a No-Obj position for this draft.

Jari

On Sep 29, 2013, at 6:16 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art