[Gen-art] Re: [Ecrit] WG: Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats-04.txt

Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> Mon, 27 August 2007 12:34 UTC

Return-path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPdnD-0003WC-BQ; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:34:07 -0400
Received: from gen-art by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IPdnC-0003To-SG for gen-art-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:34:06 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPdn8-0003QG-Tj for gen-art@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:34:02 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPdn8-0002XV-5N for gen-art@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:34:02 -0400
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2007 12:34:00 -0000
Received: from socks1.netz.sbs.de (EHLO [192.35.17.26]) [192.35.17.26] by mail.gmx.net (mp020) with SMTP; 27 Aug 2007 14:34:00 +0200
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19YVOxf911YkN3uCllTNzjbcbmMOCNxsKPXojogg/ BYhW7cLGKagGcU
Message-ID: <46D2C4B4.1030307@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:33:56 +0200
From: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Vogt <christian.vogt@nomadiclab.com>
References: <46C4B6C5.1040905@gmx.net> <46C9B81A.5020101@gmx.net> <46CA8461.7010400@nomadiclab.com>
In-Reply-To: <46CA8461.7010400@nomadiclab.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, ECRIT <ecrit@ietf.org>, "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>, gen-art@ietf.org, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor@rogers.com>, Murugaraj Shanmugam <murugaraj@gmail.com>, hgs@cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Gen-art] Re: [Ecrit] WG: Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats-04.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Christian,

I hope that the new draft version addresses your comments.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats-05.txt

Ciao
Hannes

Christian Vogt wrote:
> Henning and Hannes, one brief comment:
>
>   
>>> Maybe this should be clarified either in this document, or in the
>>> Requirements document -- in particular because the Requirements document
>>> currently only talks about verifying the caller's location, rather than
>>> verifying whether there actually exists an emergency case at that
>>> location.
>>>       
>> The future emergency services infrastructure might be able to handle
>> more media types and accept additional data. However, it is quite likely
>> that the PSAP operator will not be able to use these things for a long
>> time since the capabilities are just not supported by end systems and in
>> some cases it might actually be difficult to expect the emergency caller
>> to take pictures (given the level of stress they are likely to
>> experience during an emergency situation).
>>     
>
> Right, and this is in line with what I was saying:  Verification of the
> truthfulness of (the extent of) a reported incident cannot be solved by the
> ECRIT protocol.  I was suggesting to clarify this in the requirements section.
>
> Best,
> - Christian
>
>   



_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art