Location Hiding: Problem Statement and Requirements
draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-04

[Ballot discuss]
I may be missing something, but it seems that these requirements should be in addition to
the requirements specified in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements].  The document does not
say that anywhere, and the specification of [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements] as informative
adds to my confusion.

[Ballot discuss]
I like the document and I belive that it's ready for approval, but I have a rather minor detail to clarify.

Req-6:  The solution MUST work if PSAP boundaries have holes.  (For a
      discussion about holes in PSAP boundaries and their encoding the
      reader is referred to [I-D.ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes].)

I do not see how the requirement can be understood without understanding the concept of holes in PSAP or LoST service boundaries. This being a MUST requirement it looks to me like [I-D.ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes] should be a Normative rather than Informative reference.

[Ballot comment]
The document says:

  Req-3:  The solution MUST offer automated discovery of servers and
  other behavior, i.e., no manual configuration can be assumed.

I am confused by the phrase "other behaviour" in this context. Perhaps
you should rewrite this to: "... automated discovery of servers and other
necessary configuration information ..."

[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 16 Feb 2010 raised one question
  that ought to be addressed, and I have copied it into my DISCUSS ballot
  position.  Ben also raised some editorial questions, please consider
  them.

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 16 Feb 2010 raised one question
  that ought to be addressed.  In the first bullet of Section 3.3, the
  MUST in a section entitled "Desirable Properties" is confusing. If
  it is really a MUST, then perhaps it should be stated as a
  requirement? Otherwise, it should be a SHOULD?

[Ballot comment]
This document only has 1 normative reference which is RFC 2119. I don't believe this is correct, several other references are needed to properly understand requirements. Please check which references are normative and which are truly informative.

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 (mlinsner@cisco.com).
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 was controversal and kept
ECRIT and GEOPRIV participants busy for a while. 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.