Subject: [Ecrit] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-01.txt

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:44:25 +0300

Here is a proposal for the PROTO writeup we are going to submit next
Sunday for  
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req
-01.txt

PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-01.txt
=============================================================

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

      Document Shepherd is Marc Linsner.
      The document is ready for publications and I have reviewed the 
      document personally.

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

	  The document received a lot of reviews within the group. 
	  It was created after long and controversial discussions around

	  feedback obtained from network operators about deploying the 
	  IETF emergency services architecture. 

	  There are no concerns about the depth and the breadth of the
reviews. 

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?
          
      There are no concerns with the document. 

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

      There are no concerns. 
	  
   (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?
          
      There is consensus behind this document.
      
   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)
          
      The topic of location hiding is controversal and lack of
excitement 
	  surfaced in the ECRIT and the GEOPRIV working group. Key
working 
	  group members have expressed a lot of concerns but seem to be 
	  fine with the resulting requirements document. 

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

      The document does not contain nits. 

   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

     The document has references split into normative and 
     informative references. 
     
   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

   An IANA consideration section exists but there are not actions for 
   IANA since this is a requirements document. 

   (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

   The document does not contain formal languages. 

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents. 

Document Announcement Write-Up for "Location Hiding: Problem Statement 
and Requirements" (draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-01.txt)

   Technical Summary

   The emergency services architecture developed in the IETF Emergency
   Context Resolution with Internet Technology (ECRIT) working group
   describes an architecture where location information is provided by
   access networks to end points or VoIP service providers in order to
   determine the correct dial string and information to route the call
   to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP).  For determining the PSAP
   Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) the usage of the Location-to-
   Service Translation (LoST) Protocol is envisioned.
   
   This document provides a problem statement and lists requirements
   for situations where the Internet Access Provider (IAP) and/or the 
   Internet Service Provider (ISP) are only willing to disclose 
   limited or no location information.

   Working Group Summary

      There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.

   Document Quality

      The document has been reviewed by ECRIT working group members
      and feedback was provided by participants from various 
      emergency services workshops.
      
   Personnel

     Marc Linsner is the document shepherd for this document.  

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

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:47:31 -0700

>      There is consensus behind this document.

This does not seem to match 1.f below.  I believe that the consensus
for this document has a strong rough patch in it:  discussion has
circled around:

   Req-A:  There MUST be a way an access network can withhold detailed
      location information from any entity it wishes to, and
      specifically, the endpoint, and a VSP.

over and over again. 

>          fine with the resulting requirements document.

What does "lack of excitement mean here"?

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:15:19 +0300

Hi Ted, 

Thanks for your quick feedback:

>This does not seem to match 1.f below.  I believe that the 
>consensus for this document has a strong rough patch in it:  
>discussion has circled around:
>

Do you want me to say it in this way? 

>What does "lack of excitement mean here"?

When I wrote this I already thought that someone would be complaining
but I liked the phrase. 

How would you rephrase this paragraph? 

Ciao
Hannes