Subject: [Ecrit] draft-ecrit-framework-02

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:54:20 -0400

My day job spiked at the wrong time, and I did not have time to adequately
rev -framework and -phonebcp.  I did put out a rev of -framework,
incorporating all comments EXCEPT a lengthy set of comments from Henning
(Prof Schulzrinne red penned my work, I think I would have gotten a D-).
Until it is announced, you can get a copy at:

http://www.brianrosen.net/internet-drafts/draft-ecrit-framework-02.txt
http://www.brianrosen.net/internet-drafts/draft-ecrit-framework-02.html

As we are still working on details of LoST and location things that directly
affect both -framework and -phonebcp I don't feel too badly about missing
this cycle.  Once we really, truly, get the big picture settled, then it
will be the time for us to finish both of these docs.

Too me, the huge holes in these docs are related to location issues not
settled, like HELD details, dereferencing, location hiding and location
integrity ("signing"), as well as how IMS networks conform to the docs.  

I'd welcome any comments on what is there.  I will put out a rev to
-phonebcp incorporating all comments received soon, and do a "real" rev of
both later reflecting changes in the big picture.  We do hope to have both
docs in WGLC by the end of the year.

Brian

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

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:22:57 +0200

Hi Brian,

thanks for the update.

> (Prof Schulzrinne red penned my work, I think I would have gotten a D-).
Many of us went through this already :-)
Sometimes I thought it would have been better for Henning to re-write 
the draft right away.

> http://www.brianrosen.net/internet-drafts/draft-ecrit-framework-02.html
I will review them for the IETF meeting.

> will be the time for us to finish both of these docs.
I agree with you.

> integrity ("signing"), as well as how IMS networks conform to the docs.  
Let's try not to cover everything in a single document. It's fine to 
point to HELD.
I would not cover
* Location Hiding
* Location Signing
* Unauthenticated Network Access

The interaction with 3GPP IMS is even more difficult. I have an action 
item to schedule a conf. call between ECRIT and the 3GPP to discuss this 
issue.

> docs in WGLC by the end of the year.
Thanks for the estimate.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:28:20 -0400

> Sometimes I thought it would have been better for Henning to re- 
> write the draft right away.
>

It's a lot easier to critique something than to write something :-)

>>
> Let's try not to cover everything in a single document. It's fine  
> to point to HELD.
> I would not cover
> * Location Hiding
> * Location Signing

All of these seem somewhat orthogonal to the main thrust of the  
framework and seem like items we can solve later. Also, location  
hiding may well be a special case and I think there is some general  
agreement on not having it burden innocent bystanders.

I think unauthenticated network access is relatively straightforward  
as long as the ISP operates a SIP proxy and (possibly) a LoST server  
and very difficult otherwise. If that's the case, the discussion can  
be very brief, but I'm not even sure it needs to be in the framework  
document. This should work within our normal procedures, i.e.,  
discovery of outbound proxy and local LoST server. The only real  
impact on the phone-bcp would be to make sure that a client tries the  
DHCP-advertised outbound proxy if necessary.

Henning