IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> Mon, 12 October 2020 14:37 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 2114E3A1532 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 DRDgCdfTiU3j for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x132.google.com (mail-il1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::132]) (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 B007A3A09F1 for <stir@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x132.google.com with SMTP id y16so12026804ila.7 for <stir@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:37:45 -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=D57BJO699VaizE5PL9+k03Qpqp4NNBh0Ve4EgEEn+68=; b=B0bJDt73OlgSnDQbAIWGH0bv/Wjlox+dP81ZxH/enYv+u+VWxOQX0vGsKJT0gmU0bF vH6fQ4OwCVf/Uny+3acZ6jZmvgCnC/4NeBPrHwThoFgWCoXqW9x/RDMIOREcrrRFlsMx wiFQMFtaZtkNFaW5SPSxcLrHZhokgZHZAJ2Eh2qgbW4+W33fnpnfBJ/4ZkOKdGQlgR5z ETfTbHKucn2Edjqm35bKasr0NZJj0eqeoEYNLFCAdVohaBEJMmoaN9H4Tkvw1NuAVD7T r0Mme8dYewCyPmle+6HFHnoHuc2pRtlu8YsKNgafTutXcDp4ttKGjPPz8ZWHfOhQsbLG 5bRg==
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=D57BJO699VaizE5PL9+k03Qpqp4NNBh0Ve4EgEEn+68=; b=UYau/GDgiLpjH45vGojdTtIWgELpcejG0WzC04+KBN2JfIkZJVA3/aratizkTjT1Kz roh0N8QWMajO0avLzUjYV+TOff1Rr5zgiRR7qB2MCzh7NFXpOMIO5jZW23MrBkCjBYVc TG8liJM0ElwxNHLwhTyIOqwtScWHQrISqRfjRsTzfye83KAiSAiqGdOF91wZwAqu7yC2 u8nXY92oVVszX10McQu66ML+74NI7klVdAvc0OqR5SUdiWJd3mvmNTfynD/ePl/Swnn0 ghzhZUPCRm0q9sY7sjH4BVbHSWQcs8/prVO/L9tlnJzcMmIw6SFg6yV5BWkEeRsnK9Zt 0I4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530UDZjrQklmb3h9SH4roCox9wnTLIsqditL9zFnh6F0JJYZxNeS /klJlMa0480WSFNZ+9SwHt5qIA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwg/9tdCn19zD1QJB5NN+Dn2Fi8K0m88tDGYR4kPkvogbqDGbKhlhUqNgmxvK5qpN8lBO3r6w==
X-Received: by 2002:a92:d8ce:: with SMTP id l14mr19209212ilo.86.1602513464828; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:37:44 -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 z19sm7436236ioz.4.2020.10.12.07.37.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Message-Id: <17CE89AF-3EC8-44DB-BA99-94FDDC8A39F5@brianrosen.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_934A91B7-3E12-4AA7-8AA2-BDF746D89F3E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:37:42 -0400
In-Reply-To: <6AA85445-9755-4B55-B297-150980A3344D@brianrosen.net>
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> <6AA85445-9755-4B55-B297-150980A3344D@brianrosen.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/rdaqwD2um-0es4Ym_MRD6LqbGqQ>
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 14:37:49 -0000

I was reminded that actually, we did agree to change it to avoid confusion.  So it will be esnet.1

> On Oct 12, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email