Subject: [Ecrit] Forward Progress

From: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:37:33 -0500

It appears that forward progress with regards to 'Location Hiding' and
'Unauthenticated Access' is going to take some time.  In an effort to
complete current milestones, what are opinions about adding the text below
to phonebcp/framework?

"This document provides guidance for generic network configurations.  It is
recognized that unique issues may exist in some network deployments.  The
IETF will continue to investigate these unique situations and provide
further guidance, if warranted, in future documents."

-Marc-

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

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:39:52 -0600

I am fine with that Marc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Linsner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 December 2007 8:38 AM
> To: 'ECRIT'
> Subject: [Ecrit] Forward Progress
> 
> "This document provides guidance for generic network configurations.
It
> is

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

---

From: "Liess, Laura" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:10:18 +0100

Marc,

I am fine if there is some small hint about LH. 

"It is recognized that unique issues, as hiding the precise location, may exist in some network deployments."  I think this doesn't harm anybody. Maybe you have better wording for it... 

Laura   

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Marc Linsner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2007 22:38
An: 'ECRIT'
Betreff: [Ecrit] Forward Progress

-Marc-

---

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:15:37 -0500

I'm fine with moving forward with your recommended text. 
Barbara

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Linsner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 4:38 PM
To: 'ECRIT'
Subject: [Ecrit] Forward Progress

It appears that forward progress with regards to 'Location Hiding' and
'Unauthenticated Access' is going to take some time.  In an effort to
complete current milestones, what are opinions about adding the text
below
to phonebcp/framework?

"This document provides guidance for generic network configurations.  It
is
recognized that unique issues may exist in some network deployments.
The
IETF will continue to investigate these unique situations and provide
further guidance, if warranted, in future documents."

-Marc-

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA623

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:53:37 -0500

There is some belief that we can deploy location hiding without
specification.  My proposal only involves what the LIS does, for example.  I
fear unspecified things will be implemented badly, which is why I wanted
text in -phonebcp.  If that's not possible, then we'll have to live without
it.

I'd prefer to see if we can get a rough consensus on the proposal on the
table.  We're not going to get a unanimous consensus.

With respect to unauthenticated access, I do think we need mechanism,
because it's not possible for a VSP to know what to do.  The access network
can just obey its own local regulations, so no problem there, but a VSP on
the Internet doesn't know what to do; it's location dependent.

I think we need a solution.  I don't think it's hard, since the only thing a
VSP can do is pass or not pass the call through.  What I think we need is a
flag from LoST that says whether unauthenticated calling is required in the
location specified.  It might be able to be a single bit, but perhaps an
enumerated type makes more sense for possible future variations in what the
VSP has to do.

Endpoints can try regardless.  PSAPs take calls they get, generally.  It's
really the VSP that is in the dark.

Brian

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:39:39 -0600

Regarding "unauthenticated access" - I'd like a specific (likely 
detailed) definition of what this is in a VoIP environment (and not a 
cellular one) before we go about solving for it. I don't believe 
enough folks know what this is, exactly (in VoIP) - as that was the 
general sentiment last week in Vancouver.

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:52:01 -0500

I supplied a definition:
An uninitialized device does not have permission to use the access and/or
calling network but local regulation requires the access and calling
networks to grant such permission for the sole purpose of making emergency
calls.

We're changing terminology to use "unauthenticated access", so we would have
to change this slightly.

Brian

> From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:40 AM
> To: Brian Rosen; 'Marc Linsner'; 'ECRIT'
> Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Forward Progress with "unauthenticated access"
>

---

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:49:27 -0500

I just don't see why a "calling network" that operates out of a foreign
country and that only markets to people in that foreign country, should
care at all what "local regulations" in other countries require.
Historically, the only regulations that a calling network is subject to,
are the regulations of the country it operates and markets in. That's
certainly true with current emergency services regulations for VoIP.

I think "calling networks" will have no problem routing emergency calls
they can authenticate. But I don't think there's any way the IETF or
some country can mandate that a foreign "calling network" has to route
unauthenticated calls, no matter how they're marked, unless you're
expecting countries to sign agreements and treaties for the sake of
supporting emergency calls by unauthenticated callers. Given that
current trends appear to be shifting away from even having cellular
access carriers support this, my intuition says "not likely" on this
one. I could be wrong...

I agree with James P, that we need to get a better characterization of
this problem in the VoIP scenario where the access network has no role
in recognizing emergency calls. 

As a "calling network" provider, I would expect to know the regulations
of the countries I operate in. I don't need a flag to tell me what those
regulations are. And I don't see why a "calling network" provider should
care at all what the regulations are of the foreign country where
someone is calling from. Those regulations historically have never
applied. If you need to make an unauthenticated VoIP emergency call,
then I think you'd do best to point yourself to a "calling network" that
operates within the country where you are (assuming that country allows
such unauthenticated calls). I think the FCC would have a real hard time
telling a VSP operating and marketing in Germany that it MUST route
unauthenticated calls from the US, going to a US PSAP, if the German
regulations say that it doesn't have to route unauthenticated calls.

I'm just not seeing a real need for the added complexity and changes. My
intuition says that if there were a parameter, like you (Brian) suggest,
that it would be completely ignored, all the time, when coming from a
foreign country. And the local regulations are known. Find some people
with regulatory or legislative powers, from influential countries, who
really believe in the need to support this scenario, and are willing to
say so, and I'll admit I'm wrong. Till then, I think this is
unnecessary.
Barbara  

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:52 AM
To: 'James M. Polk'; 'Marc Linsner'; 'ECRIT'
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Forward Progress with "unauthenticated access"

I supplied a definition:
An uninitialized device does not have permission to use the access
and/or
calling network but local regulation requires the access and calling
networks to grant such permission for the sole purpose of making
emergency
calls.

We're changing terminology to use "unauthenticated access", so we would
have
to change this slightly.

Brian

> >can just obey its own local regulations, so no problem there, but a
VSP
> on
> >VSP can do is pass or not pass the call through.  What I think we
need is
> a
> >flag from LoST that says whether unauthenticated calling is required
in
> the
> >enumerated type makes more sense for possible future variations in
what
> the

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA625