Subject: [Ecrit] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-16.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:01:57 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies of the IETF.

        Title           : Next-Generation Pan-European eCall
        Authors         : Randall Gellens
                          Hannes Tschofenig
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-16.txt
	Pages           : 44
	Date            : 2016-10-14

Abstract:
   This document describes how to use IP-based emergency services
   mechanisms to support the next generation of the pan European in-
   vehicle emergency call service defined under the eSafety initiative
   of the European Commission (generally referred to as "eCall"). eCall
   is a standardized and mandated system for a special form of emergency
   calls placed by vehicles, providing real-time communications and an
   integrated set of related data.

   This document also registers MIME Content Types and an Emergency Call
   Additional Data Block for the eCall vehicle data and metadata/control
   data, and an INFO package to enable carrying this data in INFO
   requests.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-16

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-16

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:02:18 -0700

Title           : Next-Generation Vehicle-Initiated Emergency Calls
        Authors         : Randall Gellens
                          Brian Rosen
                          Hannes Tschofenig
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-15.txt
	Pages           : 43
	Date            : 2016-10-14

Abstract:
   This document describes how to use IP-based emergency services
   mechanisms to support the next generation of emergency calls placed
   by vehicles (automatically in the event of a crash or serious
   incident, or manually invoked by a vehicle occupant) and conveying
   vehicle, sensor, and location data related to the crash or incident.
   Such calls are often referred to as "Automatic Crash Notification"
   (ACN), or "Advanced Automatic Crash Notification" (AACN), even in the
   case of manual trigger.  The "Advanced" qualifier refers to the
   ability to carry a richer set of data.

   This document also registers a MIME Content Type and Emergency Call
   Additional Data Block for the vehicle, sensor, and location data
   (often referred to as "crash data" even though there is not
   necessarily a crash) and an INFO package to enable carrying this and
   related data in INFO requests.  An external specification for the
   data format, contents, and structure are referenced in this document.

   This document reuses the technical aspects of next-generation pan-
   European eCall (a mandated and standardized system for emergency
   calls by in-vehicle systems within Europe and other regions).
   However, this document specifies a different set of vehicle (crash)
   data, specifically, the Vehicle Emergency Data Set (VEDS) rather than
   the eCall Minimum Set of Data (MSD).  This document is an extension
   of the eCall document, with the primary differences being that this
   document makes the MSD data set optional and VEDS mandatory, and adds
   attribute values to the metadata/control object to permit greater
   functionality.  This document registers a new INFO package (identical
   to that registered for eCall but with the addition of the VEDS MIME
   type).  This document also describes legacy (circuit-switched) ACN
   systems and their migration to next-generation emergency calling, to
   provide background information and context.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-15

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-15

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:06:30 -0700

Hi everyone,

These versions address all comments received, with the exception of 
the Content-Disposition issue Christer raised.

--Randall

At 10:01 AM -0700 10/14/16, [email-masked] wrote:

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

At 10:02 AM -0700 10/14/16, [email-masked] wrote:

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

---

From: Az Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:24:29 -0400

I'll request IETF LC first thing on Tuesday. Working on the write-up and
will share it tonight.

Thank you, WG and Randy

On Oct 14, 2016 12:06, "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> These versions address all comments received, with the exception of the
> Content-Disposition issue Christer raised.
>
> --Randall
>

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:56:26 +0000

Hi,

We need to solve the Content-Disposition issue first. If the issue is unclear, perhaps it’s not enough to cover it in the example – perhaps we need some normative clarification text too.

Regards,

Christer

From: Ecrit [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Az Mankin
Sent: 15 October 2016 18:24
To: Randy Gellens <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-16.txt and draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-15.txt

I'll request IETF LC first thing on Tuesday. Working on the write-up and will share it tonight.

Thank you, WG and Randy

On Oct 14, 2016 12:06, "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi everyone,

These versions address all comments received, with the exception of the Content-Disposition issue Christer raised.

--Randall

At 10:01 AM -0700 10/14/16, [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies of the IETF.

 Abstract:

 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
 until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.

 _______________________________________________
 Ecrit mailing list
 [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

At 10:02 AM -0700 10/14/16, [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies of the IETF.

 Abstract:

 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
 until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.

 _______________________________________________
 Ecrit mailing list
 [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:21:05 -0700

Hi Christer,

In rereading RFC 6086 and RFC 5621, I don't see any clear statement 
that the Content-Disposition of a top-level multipart within an INFO 
request should be Info-Package.  RFC 6086 says Content-Disposition is 
optional at the top level of a SIP message, and the examples in RFC 
6086 sometimes show no Content-Disposition at the top level.  Upon 
careful rereading, my interpretation is that the innermost multipart 
that contains only body parts associated with the INFO package 
perhaps should have a Content-Disposition of Info-Package.  If there 
is only one multipart, then the innermost is also the top level.

Therefore, I propose to add the following text:

    The innermost multipart that contains only body parts associated with
    the INFO package SHOULD have a Content-Disposition value of Info-
    Package (if there is only one multipart, then the innermost is also
    the top level).

And add the C-D header to the examples.

--Randy

At 4:56 PM +0000 10/15/16, Christer Holmberg wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>  We need to solve the Content-Disposition issue first. If the issue 
> is unclear, perhaps it's not enough to cover it in the example - 
> perhaps we need some normative clarification text too.
>
>  Regards,
>
>  Christer
>
>  On Oct 14, 2016 12:06, "Randall Gellens" 
> <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]> 
> wrote:
>
>  Hi everyone,
>
>  At 10:01 AM -0700 10/14/16, <mailto:[email-masked]> 
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall/>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall/
>
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-16>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-16
>
> <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-16>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-16
>
>
>   until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
> <http://tools.ietf.org> tools.ietf.org.
>
>   <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>   <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
> 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>
>
>  At 10:02 AM -0700 10/14/16, <mailto:[email-masked]> 
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash/>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash/
>
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-15>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-15
>
> <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-15>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-15
>
>
>   until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
> <http://tools.ietf.org> tools.ietf.org.
>
>   <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>   <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
> 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>
>
>  <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
> 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
One of the greatest labor saving inventions of today is tomorrow.  -
                                               --Vincent T. Foss

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:12:23 +0000

Hi Randall,

>In rereading RFC 6086 and RFC 5621, I don't see any clear statement that the Content-Disposition of a top-level multipart within an INFO request should be Info-Package.

Section 4.3.1 says:

   "If an INFO request associated with an Info Package contains a message
   body part, the body part is identified by a Content-Disposition
   header field "Info-Package" value.  The body part can contain a
   single MIME type, or it can be a multipart [RFC5621] that contains
   other body parts associated with the Info Package."

>RFC 6086 says Content-Disposition is optional at the top level of a SIP message, and the examples in RFC
>6086 sometimes show no Content-Disposition at the top level.  Upon careful rereading, my interpretation is that the innermost multipart that contains only body parts >associated with the INFO package perhaps should have a Content-Disposition of Info-Package.  If there is only one multipart, then the innermost is also the top level.

Correct. It's the innermost multipart that contains body parts associated with the INFO package that shall have a Content-Disposition:info-package.

And, in the example of draft-ecall, that "innermost multipart" is the only multipart, so there shall be a SIP level C-D: info-package header field.

> And add the C-D header to the examples.

I think it shall be "MUST", because I can't find any text making it optional.

Regards,

Christer

At 4:56 PM +0000 10/15/16, Christer Holmberg wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>  We need to solve the Content-Disposition issue first. If the issue is 
> unclear, perhaps it's not enough to cover it in the example - perhaps 
> we need some normative clarification text too.
>
>  Regards,
>
>  Christer
>
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall/>https://data
> tracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall/
>
> <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-16>https://w
> ww.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-16
>
>
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash/>https://
> datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash/
>
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-15>https://too
> ls.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-15
>
> <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-15>https
> ://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-15
>
>

--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- One of the greatest labor saving inventions of today is tomorrow.  -
                                               --Vincent T. Foss

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 11:40:02 -0700

Hi Christer,

I added the following text:

    The innermost multipart that contains only body parts associated with
    the INFO package has a Content-Disposition value of Info-Package (if
    there is only one multipart, then the innermost is also the top
    level).

I also added

	      Content-Dispositio: Info-Package

to the INFO examples.

This should clarify C-D.  I'll upload the revision as soon as I hear back.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them,
and I know how bad I am.                  --Samuel Johnson

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 19:18:34 +0000

Hi,

>    there is only one multipart, then the innermost is also the top

Do we really need the "(if there in only one multipart..." text?

>	      Content-Dispositio: Info-Package

Thanks! 

Regards,

Christer

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:02:46 -0700

>  Do we really need the "(if there in only one multipart..." text?

I added it because I thought someone might be confused about 
"innermost".  I'll delete it and upload the revision now.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side?  And hain't that a
big enough majority in any town?    --Mark Twain, _Huckleberry Finn_

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:14:24 -0700

Thanks, Allison.  ecall-17 and car-crash-16 (just uploaded now) 
address all comments, including the Content-Disposition issue.

--Randy

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
When you do not know what you are doing, do it neatly.

---

From: Az Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:43:18 -0500

Hooray, thank you!

On Oct 16, 2016 17:14, "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thanks, Allison.  ecall-17 and car-crash-16 (just uploaded now) address
> all comments, including the Content-Disposition issue.
>
> --Randy
>

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:51:04 -0700

ecall-18 and car-crash-17 (just uploaded now) address all comments, 
including Ivo's.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to
the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his
children are smart.                                      --H.L. Mencken

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:38:51 +0000

Hi,

Once all comments have been addressed, I think the community should be
given a few days to check the latest version of the draft, before the
publication request is done.

Regards,

Christer

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:37:02 -0700

eCall-19 and car-crash-18 (just uploaded now) address all comments.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I really don't know one plane from the other.  To me they are
just marginal costs with wings.
    --Alfred Kahn, "Father of Airline Deregulation," 1977