Subject: [Ecrit] Comments on the Location Hiding Requirements document

From: Andres Kütt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:51:20 +0300

Hi,

    I have some comments as to the document at
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-location-hiding-requi
rements-00.txt

- 1.2. I don't think it is accurate to try to point out reasons why ISP/IAP
would like to hide location information. The server load is just one aspect,
but most probably they would be too greedy to give out valuable information
for free. 
- REQ-C. That's a strange requirement. In case the call goes through VSP
infrastructure they know (in case they trust LoST) that the URI is a genuine
one and control the termination process. In case the call does not go
through a VSP, there is really no way of knowing where the call ends up at.
Or I don't understand the point of the requirement
- Req-1. I would rather say that a relationship with IAP (the people who set
up a rogue wifi AP) can not be assumed but a relationship with ISP could be
feasible (although highly underireable) under certain circumstances. For
example, it might be OK to state that emergency calls with that phone only
work in a particular country where deals with a couple of major players
could give sufficient coverage
- Thank you for Req-5, it's really important for folks like Skype
- Req-9 is irrelevant as any operation before the call adds latency and it
depends on the implementation whether or not that particular deduction adds
significiant latency or not. I would rather say that the solution MUST seek
to minimize the call setup time
- Aren't Req-10 and Req-11 the same? If I have the PSAP/ESRP URL, don't I
also have the dial string?
- Req-12 is ambiquous. What is minimal impact? In terms of performance,
resource requirements, development, code complexity or what? UAs need to be
updated anyway and it is unlikely that any solution drives any resource
requirements through the roof. And when that happens, it's the problem of
the UA vendor, not this standards body, I think.
- Req-14. The same as REQ-C. The VSP needs to be able to trust the LoST
service anyway 
- Req-15. What has it to do with locations? We already said that the calls
might not be SIP calls which implies some sort of a proxy and the fact that
the calls do not always originate directly from the UA. Which makes the
issue of having or not having yet another proxy on the call's path
irrelevant
- Req-16. This is how Req-9 should be worded

Yours,
Andres Kütt

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit