Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-20
review-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-20-genart-lc-romascanu-2017-01-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 23)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-06
Requested 2016-12-16
Other Reviews Secdir Last Call review of -20 by Liang Xia (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -23 by Rick Casarez
Genart Telechat review of -21 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Dan Romascanu
Review review-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-20-genart-lc-romascanu-2017-01-05
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/PMeeqlpON5pUdinfNWV0oiWOrUI
Reviewed rev. 20 (document currently at 23)
Review result Almost Ready
Last updated 2017-01-05

Review
review-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-20-genart-lc-romascanu-2017-01-05

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-20
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2017-01-05
IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-06
IESG Telechat date: 2017-01-19

Summary:

It's a good and useful document which needs to be read and understood together with the eCall document, and other relevant documents from EC, NENA, APCOT. There is at least one major issue that deserves discussion and clarification before approval, IMO. 

Major issues:

1. One aspect of the relationship with eCall is unclear to me. 

The Abstract says: 

>  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. 

Then in the Introduction: 

> 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), as described in
   [I-D.ietf-ecrit-ecall].  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). 

and in Section 9: 

>  This document extends [I-D.ietf-ecrit-ecall] by reusing the call set-
   up and other normative requirements with the exception that in this
   document, support for the eCall MSD is OPTIONAL and support for VEDS
   in REQUIRED. 

First of all it's not clear if by 'eCall document' what it's meant is the European document or draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall. Second it's not clear how the two IETF documents, both on standards track relate, when the status of the MSD and VEDS data sets are different. What would prevail? The IESG is asked to approve two document, both on standards track, with different and in this case contradictory content. If I am a car manufacturer, I would ask myself what support will be mandatory to implement? Or maybe there are different scenarios where the different data sets are recommended? But then should not support for both be mandatory to implement and optional to use, maybe per geographical area? After all vehicles cross borders, or are transported / exported over the seas nowadays. 

Minor issues:

1. In the Abstract: 

> ... this document specifies a different set of vehicle (crash)
   data, specifically, the Vehicle Emergency Data Set (VEDS) ...

Actually VEDS is not specified in this document, but by APCO and NENA and referred by this document. 

2. In section 4: 

>  In the paired model, the IVS uses a Bluetooth link with a previously-
   paired handset to establish an emergency call

Is Bluetooth only an example, or only one standard way of establishing a paired communication in the legacy example? I suspect the later - so I suggest that the text is reformulated in this manner.

3. I am not an expert in this area but I wonder whether the initial values of the registry in 14.6 are aligned with car manufacturers standards. For example I am wondering if lamps that change colors should not be also included. 

4. I am not an expert in this area but I wonder whether the initial values of the registry in 14.7 are aligned with car manufacturers standards. For example I am wondering why night-vision capability is provided only for the front cameras. 


Nits/editorial comments: 

1. I believe that the European eCall requirements documents 16062 and 16072 need to be Informative References. 

2. Add an informative reference for Bluetooth mentioned in Section 4.

3. Section 16 needs to be removed at publication.