IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 12 September 2011 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A64F21F8B54 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.844
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.844 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.404, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 SGBpjD2BnF2m for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33CDE21F8B46 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p8CDj8tG000804 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:45:10 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.45]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:45:10 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "oej@edvina.net" <oej@edvina.net>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:42:20 +0200
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]
Thread-Index: AcxwDeHQiNtgQB6CQ/CJCYRrZ5tJHQBQ7tew
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE220BA41FB@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB08B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>, <4E6595E7.7060503@skype.net> <4E661C83.5000103@alcatel-lucent.com>, <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F086B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>, <4E666926.8050705@skype.net> <43A0D702-1D1F-4B4E-B8E6-C9F1A06E3F8A@edvina.net>, <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E7020E64DC@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com>, <E4EC1B17-0CC4-4F79-96DD-84E589FCC4F0@edvina.net> <4E67C3F7.7020304@jesup.org>, <BE60FA11-8FFF-48E5-9F83-4D84A7FBE2BE@vidyo.com> <4E67F003.6000108@jesup.org>, <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233E8554C@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>, <C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC8230339CA68F054@BE235.mail.lan>, <CAOJ7v-2u0UuNXh7bzmZFwiSucbsh=Ps=C3ZM5M3cJrXRmZgODA@mail.gmail.com>, <CAKhHsXHXCkNdjtpxCSCk+ABbtxY15GEgouE6X6-sn-LqhnidQw@mail.gmail.com>, <4E6A56D4.2030602@skype.net>, <CABcZeBOdP6cAqBoiSV-Vdv1_EK3DfgnMamT3t3ccjDOMfELfBw@mail.gmail.com>, <CAKhHsXFdU1ZaKQF8hbsOxwTS-_RfmFqQhgzGe=K4mRp+wz+_nQ@mail.gmail.com>, <4E6A81EC.3080002@jesup.org>, <78CC1B42-392D-4311-9417-33CC702A2FD1@edvina.net> <BLU152-W180B13FA380DD5A23041493000@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W180B13FA380DD5A23041493000@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE220BA41FBFRMRSSXCHMBSC3d_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:43:18 -0000

I believe in Japan privacy concerns of the caller outweigh the desire to receive all information at the call taker.

Regards

Keith

________________________________
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: 11 September 2011 00:04
To: oej@edvina.net; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]

[BA] Can you provide a citation for the assertion that confidentiality could be *required* for an emergency services call?

I am not aware of any such a regulatory requirement in the US.

________________________________
From: oej@edvina.net
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 09:17:16 +0200
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]

9 sep 2011 kl. 23:15 skrev Randell Jesup:

3) May simplify/improve some E911 cases.  Might be important; likely not.


911/112 cases might be typical phone calls that *require* confidentiality. In Sweden 112 is used for a lot more than accidents - call the priest, report child abuse and others that really are calls that in now way should be listened-in to by other users on the LAN or the IP network.

/O

_______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email