Next-Generation Vehicle-Initiated Emergency Calls
draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-23

[Ballot comment]

A phone call that can unlock the doors and turn on an in-car
camera. What could possibly go wrong? I think the security
considerations ought warn more specifically about the
consequences of these options.  This is not a discuss as I
assume that these features are required by US regulators, and
so cannot be removed.  If they were under IETF control, I'd
want to DISCUSS removing them entirely as I suspect that the
overall cost/benefit of these features would imply we'd be
better off without them.

[Ballot comment]
A few comments:
- "Migration of the three architectural models to next-generation (all-IP)" could be an own section
- Shouldn't this last part of section 6 ("If new data blocks are needed...") go into I-D.ietf-ecrit-ecall?
- There is a lot of redunancy within this document but also compared to I-D.ietf-ecrit-ecall (mainly section 8, some parts of 9, and 10). Is there no better way to handle this?
- There is no action to unlock door (in section 9). I assume that's because of the security risk of someone unlocking doors remotely. If that's the case I would also remove this from the example list used previously in the doc several times. Maybe instead discuss this case in the security considerations?
- Does it really need a Lamp State Registry? What additional states could come up in future beside 'on', 'off', and 'flash'? And even is there are additional states, will that change dynamically enough to have an own registry?

[Ballot comment]
In 9.4.1 there are 2 "supported-values" attributes: one contains space after ";" and another one contains multiple CRLF. Does this conform to the syntax in the ecall draft?

Similar question about section 11.

[Ballot comment]
In 9.4.1 there are 2 "supported-values" attributes: one contains space after ";" and another one contains multiple CRLF. Does this conform to the syntax in the ecall draft?

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-20.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA notes that some of the actions requested in this document depend on the approval and successful completion of actions in a different document: ietf-ecrit-ecall.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are eight actions which we must complete.

First, in the applications subregistry of the Media Types registry located at :

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

a single, new application media type is to be created as follows:

Name: EmergencyCallData.VEDS+xml
Template: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-TO-BE ]

Second, in the Emergency Call Data Types subregisttry of the Emergency Call Additional Data registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/emergency-call-additional-data/

a single, new entry will be added as follows:

Token: VEDS
Data About: The Call
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Third, in the Emergency Call Action subregistry - a new registry to be created upon the approval of the current draft ietf-ecrit-ecall - five new values are to be added using [ RFC-to-be ] as the reference:

+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| Name | Description |
+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| msg-static | Section 9.1 of [ RFC-to-be ] |
| | |
| msg-dynamic | Section 9.1 of [ RFC-to-be ] |
| | |
| honk | Section 9.1 of [ RFC-to-be ] |
| | |
| lamp | Section 9.1 of [ RFC-to-be ] |
| | |
| enable-camera | Section 9.1 of [ RFC-to-be ] |
+---------------+-------------------------------------+

Fourth, in the Emergency Call Action subregistry - a new registry to be created upon the approval of the current draft ietf-ecrit-ecall - a new subregistry is to be created called the Emergency Call Static Message registry. This registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined in RFC 5226.

There is a single new entry in the new registry as follows:

+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| ID | Message | Reference |
+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | Emergency services has noted your information and location, | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| | but cannot speak with you right now. We will help you as | |
| | soon as possible. | |
+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+---------------+

Fifth, also in the Emergency Call Action subregistry - a new registry to be created upon the approval of the current draft ietf-ecrit-ecall - a new subregistry is to be created called the Emergency Call Vehicle Lamp ID registry. This registry will be managed via Expert Review as defined in RFC 5226.

There are eleven initial entries in the new registry - each with a reference of [ RFC-to-be ] - as follows:

+----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Name | Description |
+----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| head | The main lamps used to light the road ahead |
| | |
| interior | Interior lamp, often at the top center |
| | |
| fog-front | Front fog lamps |
| | |
| fog-rear | Rear fog lamps |
| | |
| brake | Brake indicator lamps |
| | |
| brake-center | Center High Mounted Stop Lamp |
| | |
| position-front | Front position/parking/standing lamps |
| | |
| position-rear | Rear position/parking/standing lamps |
| | |
| turn-left | Left turn/directional lamps |
| | |
| turn-right | Right turn/directional lamps |
| | |
| hazard | Hazard/four-way lamps |
+----------------+---------------------------------------------+

Sixth, also in the Emergency Call Action subregistry - a new registry to be created upon the approval of the current draft ietf-ecrit-ecall - a new subregistry is to be created called the Lamp State registry. This registry will be managed via Expert Review as defined in RFC 5226.

There are three initial entries in the new registry - each with a reference of [ RFC-to-be ] - as follows:

+-------+----------------------------------------+
| Name | Description |
+-------+----------------------------------------+
| on | The lamp is on (illuminated) |
| | |
| off | The lamp is off (extinguished) |
| | |
| flash | The lamp alternates between on and off |
+-------+----------------------------------------+

Seventh, also in the Emergency Call Action subregistry - a new registry to be created upon the approval of the current draft ietf-ecrit-ecall - a new subregistry is to be created called the Emergency Call Vehicle Camera ID registry. This registry will be managed via Expert Review as defined in RFC 5226.

There are eight initial entries in the new registry - each with a reference of [ RFC-to-be ] - as follows:

+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Name | Description |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| backup | Shows what is behind the vehicle, e.g., often used |
| | for driver display when the vehicle is in reverse. |
| | Also known as rearview, reverse, rear visibility, |
| | etc. |
| | |
| left-rear | Shows view to the left and behind (e.g., left side |
| | rear-view mirror or blind spot view) |
| | |
| right-rear | Shows view to the right and behind (e.g., right |
| | side rear-view mirror or blind spot view) |
| | |
| forward | Shows what is in front of the vehicle |
| | |
| rear-wide | Shows what is behind vehicle (e.g., used by rear- |
| | collision detection systems), separate from backup |
| | view |
| | |
| lane | Used by systems to identify road lane and/or |
| | monitor vehicle's position within lane |
| | |
| interior | Shows the interior (e.g., driver) |
| | |
| night-front | Night-vision view of what is in front of the |
| | vehicle |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+

Eighth, in the Info Packages Registry in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters/

a single, new entry will be added as follows:

Name: emergencyCallData.eCall.VEDS
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these eight actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: allison.mankin@gmail.com, "Allison Mankin" , alissa@cooperw.in, draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash@ietf.org, ecrit-chairs@ietf.org, ecrit@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Next-Generation Vehicle-Initiated Emergency Calls) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Emergency Context Resolution
with Internet Technologies WG (ecrit) to consider the following
document:
- 'Next-Generation Vehicle-Initiated Emergency Calls'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-01-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

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 media 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 a SIP INFO package to enable carrying this
  and related data in SIP 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 SIP 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 file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2523/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2252/

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard.  The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header and it is appropriate because the WG was chartered for standards track work in this technology. 

(2) 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. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash specifies IETF mechanisms to support next-generation vehicle-initiated emergency calls in multiple regions, including North America.  It builds on the foundation provided for the pan-European eCall service and it is normatively dependent on draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall, proceeding in parallel.  The document also registers a MIME media type and an INFO package.  External SDOs (including NENA, the I_HeERO [Harmonised eCall European Deployment] project, and others) have references to this document, and are
waiting for an RFC number.

Working Group Summary

The document was reviewed by a large number of people during its development.  Towards the end it received a large number of comments from a small number of people, and their comments were carefully considered, and resolved with good (mostly not rough) consensus.  Multiple WG participants also participate in the SDOs intending to use this document and have made sure the document meets the needs of those SDOs.

Document Quality

There are not presently implementations of the protocol, but the SDOs charged with overall next-generation pan-European emergency call have many vendors interested in implementation of the car-crash protocol on a quick timetable.

A media type registered by this document was posted for received expert review on the mediatypes mailing list.  It did not receive direct comments, but it had the same issue as the media type registered by draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall, which was resolved with the help of Ned Freed.  The thread for that issue begins at:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/media-types/current/msg00835.html

The request for review on this document's media type is here:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/media-types/current/msg00842.html

Other types of formal expert review were not required. 

Personnel

  Allison Mankin is the Document Shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the Responsible Area Director

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I reviewed this document and concluded it was logical, clear and consistent.  The detailed reviews by several participants helped with consistency, since the document has been worked on for a long time.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns with the depth or breadth of reviews.  This is ready to proceed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No additional review other than that of the IESG is required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

I have no concerns to mention.  In addition, the Responsible Area Director has been actively involved in the long development of this document and is well apprised.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes, the authors have done this confirmation.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

An IPR disclosure was filed on the first version of the document, and renewed when the document had had several revisions, but prior to adoption by the WG.  The disclosure is by Qualcomm and I was told that the claim is current.  The WG discussed the IPR disclosures on the mailing list before WG adoption and then went on to adopt the document in the WG.

(9) 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? 

A medium number of individuals have been actively engaged with the document, and there has been robust debate.  I am satisfied in reviewing minutes and discussing the document with my co-chair (Roger Marshall) that there was broad understanding, and consensus, as this is an important use case of the WG's technology.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No threats, nothing extreme.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

I have asked the editor to address several nits when he revises in response to IETF Last Call - the primary issue is that two normative references have been obsoleted by bis RFCs:  3023 -> 7303, and 4288 -> 6838. 




(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Formal media type review was completed, see above.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

RFC 6443, an Informational, is currently listed as a Normative reference, but I believe on review that there is no reason for this, and it should be moved to the Informational references.  There is no need to trigger a downref procedure, or force normative in this case.

A specification that was joint work by NENA and two automotive organizations is also among the Normative References, and I believe it does need to be normative.  I'm uncertain of how this is currently handled by the IESG, so I forward the issue of this reference to the Responsible Area Director.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.
 
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

Three new sub-registries are created under a registry created by the normative reference draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall, which is proceeding in parallel to this document. No changes are required to the sub-registry names, but this document will have to be updated to match the requested more specific name for the new registry in which they appear (as discussed in the Shepherd Writeup of draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new Expert Review.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

The XML examples in this document were checked and validated using the tool at https://www.xmlvalidation.com and also the tool at http://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_validator.asp and I am satisfied that these examples are valid.