Re: [stir] Review of draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services

Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> Mon, 12 October 2020 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <br@brianrosen.net>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E0E73A150E for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8lfIriXXvql3 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x135.google.com (mail-il1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B5B03A1508 for <stir@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x135.google.com with SMTP id q1so16076459ilt.6 for <stir@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=agHho8O9pHFW1dhG5zzjjvSkafMEUjWkwHD8jFrwyqU=; b=IuwS4Qgo1lmq2TOFjCGJMkPqBUuFi0bo6OGsxraZbHHVg57o9ND12lDvJ9LfRO5Hu8 BCDaweMqDX3UeLZtS5BJYre3ZCX1b2+MK9Q5RJ0rVotC0uaZselAHvfDyEbUDVu/Fo6q qG3+GSTJv1irFPa3UPbV46NooQRIEYAs1HYVw4/sffcK6ba87/S/g8iPqtC3fAq9/BFC Uo20JN6GZxrXQXlzbV1v7eYRJV2FxbECOhLGvD2d30D+b8cb1PtgNTFgdqRDVPLfAKcy dZEK/hGRlrVk8ijpd5G2gAd4b4KK1RlCSeWlSQm/Dbv/258t2fi9yez8GQFBz67y+Wa5 /7Rg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=agHho8O9pHFW1dhG5zzjjvSkafMEUjWkwHD8jFrwyqU=; b=SJjuUzhc4MyTokzTDxyJQ4TIlHENSWQAwX8DHF2+shOURsj19tGsfHNf1DZGCIQYiA RLbmGbNl4+kXEW1gc13ptMWRK9Wrz6J2lEk3vgpPfgbx9xVi0eJwNllwtyokllbo7vsv Kpm4QeaF63pEoFRZH05NrOsPjAYbNf8TITFapJ3IezOOB0ZpcQHrdEzysVxRZzZac+NK NDrEQhQpf11UN1Zy0g1d+djUiUNuG5bRoxBYYdm8V840MZvuIFTj0QBcvDfO4nfFLr5T MnjEVZXtYvse2Te7y8kWl0VszquBXv6JI/OBiocvwML4LpDmmQQ3O9qpGELnSKH42XG/ ChPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ofQeO5aSpqCRl8q4fLMzN3lugY6uOlOVu0vFBtfjXPceEnejI 1NzPHgwMic88a6U6s0mFQZ6jjxkOympeXGxT
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxcZGD874+ON29PsQh8PCVn+I4+NvEeuEqbT2VIpFLlQ3IVpUNfTUg+/ODvz5/bthyMVYxiXQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:106d:: with SMTP id q13mr4372629ilj.304.1602512353503; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brians-mbp-2871.lan (dynamic-acs-24-154-119-158.zoominternet.net. [24.154.119.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r4sm9494003ilc.32.2020.10.12.07.19.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Message-Id: <6AA85445-9755-4B55-B297-150980A3344D@brianrosen.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F744083B-CA55-4FB9-A056-F5BEE639E604"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:19:10 -0400
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR03MB3827DCC6788EEFEB1C20DCC9A5090@BN7PR03MB3827.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Chris Wendt <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net>, Jack Rickard <Jack.Rickard@metaswitch.com>, "stir@ietf.org" <stir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services@ietf.org>
To: Tolga Asveren <tasveren@rbbn.com>
References: <BYAPR02MB51891E95480910389FE0FDC7F3400@BYAPR02MB5189.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <AB059D94-9BCA-4794-BCD4-211D7E8E80F2@brianrosen.net> <BYAPR02MB5189BE4C40E7A72BCFC8BD03F35D0@BYAPR02MB5189.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <959DCC43-1686-49D3-9195-719CF65C9EE9@brianrosen.net> <BYAPR02MB5189D7055FCD08B0F926B9ADF35A0@BYAPR02MB5189.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <14ACD074-FD66-4161-AC7A-ADB07127BE2D@chriswendt.net> <BYAPR02MB51899B8CC1EE4AD094A7F40AF32F0@BYAPR02MB5189.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <0D26A9F6-5559-4273-ACBA-9501E958DF22@chriswendt.net> <BYAPR02MB51892A7D03F185046E574BFFF32C0@BYAPR02MB5189.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <7E2BC364-2CCF-43EE-BFAF-9B9A29A2BE11@chriswendt.net> <BN7PR03MB3827DCC6788EEFEB1C20DCC9A5090@BN7PR03MB3827.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/FFnLzUHONrQLqQhXvhvUVUGxDDc>
Subject: Re: [stir] Review of draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stir/>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:19:16 -0000

> 
> iv- A question regarding draft-rosen-stir-emergency-calls-00
>  
>    This document recommends that emergency calls from outside an
>    Emergency Services IP Network be assigned esnet.0.
> Should this ne esnet.1? If it indeed it esnet.0 then why is the value esnet.1 for emergency calls in draft-ietf-rph-emergency-services?
>  
Emergency Calls are handled by a Emergency Services IP network (ESInet).  That network has to handle a lot of different kinds of emergency communications, some higher priority and some lower priority.  Esnet.1 was chosen to reflect this,  Outside the ESInet, at least for the past decades, emergency calling (9-1-1, 1-1-2, etc.) is the lowest priority and in many networks, gets no priority at all.  So marking with esnet.0 seems closest to reality.  It is somewhat annoying to have to remap at the boundary to the ESInet, but it has to police the marking anyway, so no actual added complexity.  I’d be okay with making the recommended marking esnet.1 if it confuses readers.

Brian