Next-Generation Pan-European eCall
draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-27

[Ballot comment]
Minor comments:
- sec 9.1.1.1: Is there a case where 'received' could be not 'true'. I mean how can you acknowledge something that you didn't receive?
- I find the wording used saying "This document registers .." (in the whole document) not fully approrpiate because the main purpose of this doc is the spcification of the usage of these registrations. I would propose the following, e.g.
OLD
"This document registers "urn:service:test.sos.ecall" for eCall test calls."
NEW
"This document specifies "urn:service:test.sos.ecall" for eCall test calls and registers it in section X."

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for quick handling of my DISCUSS points.

One nit: in 14.1:

Contact: Apps Area Working Group (apps-discuss@ietf.org)

This should probably be art@ietf.org

[Ballot discuss]
This is a well written document. I have only a couple of minor issues I would like to discuss before recommending approval:

1) +per media type suffix needs to be registered in

2) In 9.1.1.2: should "details" element allow for language tag XML attribute? Should this element be allowed to appear multiple times with different language tags in order to allow for multiple human readable reasons (in different languages)?

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-21.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

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

First, in the application subspace of the Media Types registry located at:

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

IANA notes that the following Media Types already are present:

application/EmergencyCallData.Comment+xml
application/EmergencyCallData.DeviceInfo+xml
application/EmergencyCallData.ProviderInfo+xml
application/EmergencyCallData.ServiceInfo+xml
application/EmergencyCallData.SubscriberInfo+xml

to these five existing Media Types, based on the request in Section 14.1 of the current document, the following Media Types will be added with a reference of [ RFC-to-be ]:

EmergencyCallData.control+xm
EmergencyCallData.MSD+per

IANA Question --> Is EmergencyCallData.control+xm possibly a typo for EmergencyCallData.control+xml?

IANA Question --> Is the inclusion of EmergencyCallData.control+xml in this list of requests in section 14.1 of the current document a duplication of the request in section 14.4 of the current document?

Second, in the 'sos' Sub-Services subregistry of the URN Service Labels registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-serviceid-labels/

three new service labels will be registered as follows:

Service: urn:service:sos.ecall
Description: eCall
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Service: urn:service:sos.ecall.manual
Description: eCall, invoked by vehicle occupant
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Service: urn:service:sos.ecall.automatic
Description: eCall, invoked automatically
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 'test' Sub-Services subregistry of the URN Service Labels registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-serviceid-labels/

a single, new service label will be registered as follows:

Service: urn:service:test.sos.ecall
Description: eCall
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, in the application subspace of the Media Types registry located at:

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

a single, new application Media Type will be registered as follows:

Name: emergencyCallData.eCall.MSD+per
Template: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fifth, in the Emergency Call Data Types subregistry of the Emergency Call Additional Data registry located at:

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

two, new data types is to be added as follows:

Token: eCall.MSD
Data About: The Call
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Token: control
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.

Sixth, 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
Refference: [ 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.

Seventh, in the ns subregistry of the IETF XML Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

two, new namespaces are to be registered as follows:

ID: eCall
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eCall
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: control
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:control
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
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.

Eighth, a new registry is to be created on the List of all IANA maintained protocol parameter registries located at:

https://www.iana.org/protocols

The new registry is to be called "Emergency Call Metadata/Control Data"

Ninth, in the new registry created as a result of step eight above, a new subregistry is to be created called the Emergency Call Action registry. This registry will be maintained via Expert Review as defined in RFC 5226.

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

+-----------+--------------------------------------+
| Name | Description |
+-----------+--------------------------------------+
| send-data | See Section 9.1.3.1 of [ RFC-to-be ] |
+-----------+--------------------------------------+

Tenth, in the new registry created as a result of step eight above, a new subregistry is to be created called the Emergency Call Action Failure Reason registry. This registry will be maintained via Expert Review as defined in RFC 5226.

There are initial entires in the new subregistry - all with a reference of [ RFC-to-be ] - as follows:

+------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| ID | Description |
+------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| damaged | Required components are damaged. |
| | |
| data-unsupported | The data item referenced in a 'send-data' |
| | request is not supported. |
| | |
| security-failure | The authenticity of the request or the |
| | authority of the requestor could not be |
| | verified. |
| | |
| unable | The action could not be accomplished (a |
| | generic error for use when no other code is |
| | appropriate). |
| | |
| unsupported | The 'action' value is not supported. |
|------------------+------------------------------------------------+

Eleventh, 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.MSD
Refference: [ 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 eleven 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, ecrit-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall@ietf.org, ecrit@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Next-Generation Pan-European eCall) 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 Pan-European eCall'
  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 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 media 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 SIP INFO
  requests.

  Although this specification is designed to meet the requirements of
  European next-generation eCall, it is specified generically such that
  the technology can be re-used or extended to suit requirements across
  jurisdictions.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall/

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

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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2522/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2251/

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-ecall specifies IETF mechanisms to support next-generation pan-European eCall (European vehicle-initiated emergency calls).  It also provides the basis for next-generation vehicle-initiated emergency calls in other regions.  The document also registers MIME media types and an INFO package.  Multiple SDOs (including 3GPP, 3GPP2, CEN, NENA, 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 on a quick timetable.

Media types registered by this document received expert review on the mediatypes mailing list.  The expertise of Ned Freed, in particular, was extremely helpful in solving an issue that arose, in a way that was compatible with a predecessor document, RFC 7852.
The media type discussion can be found in the thread that begins with:

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



(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.

(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).

There is one new registry, currently called Metadata/Control Data with two new sub-registries under it.  I advise that this registry be renamed Ecrit Ecall Metadata/Control Data Registry for improved indexing.
I have requested the editor to make this change in conjunction with IETF LC comments.

(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.

An Expert Reviewer is specified for the new registry (and sub-registries) listed in (17). 
I recommend that Brian Rosen be considered for this Expert Reviewer role.

(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 schema n this document was checked and validated using the tool at https://www.xmlvalidation.com. There is one error in the schema - the end tag is missing for xs:import. 
I have requested the editor to fix this in conjunction with IETF LC comments.