Next-Generation Vehicle-Initiated Emergency Calls
RFC 8148

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 21 and is now closed.

Ben Campbell Yes

Alissa Cooper (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

Comment (2017-02-07)
Experts have completed their reviews.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Alia Atlas No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Spencer Dawkins No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2017-01-19 for -22)
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.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Mirja K├╝hlewind No Objection

Comment (2017-01-17 for -21)
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?

Terry Manderson No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Comment (2017-01-15 for -21)
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.

Kathleen Moriarty No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection