Subject: RE: [Ecrit] some observations from yesterday wg meeting

From: "James Winterbottom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 20:31:23 +1000

Brian,

Let me make sure that I have a clear understanding of your point here.
I as a recipient of location information, that provide a service in good
faith, have no right or come back, if the location provided to me is
incorrect? 

Please explain to me how this is a step in a positive direction, and how
this will bolster adoption of IP telephony?

I think that people will accept "near-equivalency", but that they will not
accept out and out lack of equivalent service.

Cheers
James

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2005 8:10 PM
To: Winterbottom, James [WOLL:5500:EXCH]; 'Andrew Newton'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] some observations from yesterday wg meeting

Chairs?

I was not a fan of the narrow focus of the charter.  It is what it is.

Each change in technology changes the situation for emergency call systems.
It takes away things, and provides new things.  When mobile phones came,
they removed accurate location and substituted inaccurate location in a
totally different, and difficult-for-psap-to-use form.  They even took away
call back number in the case of un-initialized phones. They gave the
possibility of tracking a moving caller, and they gave the ability to get
calls immediately from the scene of common events like car crashes.  On
balance, it's a good thing.

VoIP is the same; some things are being taken away, some things are being
added.  It's different, get over it.

Brian

________________________________________
From: James Winterbottom [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 5:46 AM
To: Brian Rosen; 'Andrew Newton'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] some observations from yesterday wg meeting

Bah!!! 
The problem must exist in someone's charter, and GeoPriv don't seem to want
it either! 
It is not easy, without having relatively substantial local foot print, to
spoof emergency calls with in the USA today. In a IP world, that is simply
not true any longer with the currently proposed mechanisms of user created
location documents, no matter where the source data came from. That is
consumers of location (location recipients LRs) have absolutely NO means of
assuring that this correct. The same is absolutely not true for 99.999% of
PSTN calls. 
Location is today in the cellular and wireline world is the responsibility
of the access provider, and this will need to remain the responsibility of
the access provider in the future until telekenic-osmosis becomes a reality.
ECRIT or GeoPriv pick it up until then, but stop passing the buck!!!

Cheers 
James 

-----Original Message----- 
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Brian Rosen 
Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2005 7:21 PM 
To: 'Andrew Newton' 
Cc: [email-masked] 
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] some observations from yesterday wg meeting 

But that problem is not in our charter.  If an attacker learned a PSAP's SIP
URI from any mechanism, they can mount an attack. True. 
Not in our charter. 
Determining that a location represents the location of the caller is within
charter. 
I believe identity of caller is NOT a requirement in general, but I think
it's clearly not a requirement in ecrit. 
Brian 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 5:07 AM 
To: Brian Rosen 
Cc: 'James Seng'; [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] some observations from yesterday wg meeting 

On Aug 3, 2005, at 3:23 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: 
> This discussion is more or less out of charter, as the work in ecrit
> addresses the first point above. 
I don't think so.  I think James has made a fairly important point:  
the notion that L2 location must be signed can simply be circumvented  
by an attacker contacting the PSAP's SIP server directly. 
-andy 

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

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

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 08:11:30 -0400

I think that we should provide some mechanisms to foster integrity and
authentication of source of location.  I think that such mechanisms should
be widely deployed.  I believe there are use cases where such information is
useful.  I think ONE of those use cases is emergency calls.  I think it is
not possible to provide assurances that are equivalent to current wireline
location for emergency calls.  I think location integrity and source
authentication is work in geopriv, and not ecrit.

Brian

  _____  

From: James Winterbottom [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 6:31 AM
To: Brian Rosen; 'Andrew Newton'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] some observations from yesterday wg meeting

Brian, 

Cheers 
James 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2005 8:10 PM 
To: Winterbottom, James [WOLL:5500:EXCH]; 'Andrew Newton' 
Cc: [email-masked] 
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] some observations from yesterday wg meeting 

Chairs? 

Brian 

Bah!!! 

Cheers 
James 

-----Original Message----- 

Not in our charter.