RE: [Geopriv]WGLCondraft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00(PIDF-LOdigitalsignatures)

From: Dawson, Martin ^lt;Martin.Dawson@andrew.com>
Date: Thu Mar 08 2007 - 20:36:21 EST

I'm agreeing with you Brian. So - we provide the mechanisms with the crypto set at state of the art etc. Then each jurisdiction gets to decide whether signatures are appropriate to their environment. We don't make a unilateral decision that signatures are not appropriate for emergency service environments globally and then exclude that tool from the kit. Cheers, Martin -----Original Message----- From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net] Sent: Friday, 9 March 2007 10:36 AM To: Dawson, Martin; 'Tom-PT Taylor' Cc: 'GEOPRIV'; 'Marc Linsner' Subject: RE: [Geopriv]WGLCondraft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00(PIDF-LOdigitalsignatures) Well, no, I don't think so. If I look at the skill set available in, say, NENA, they can't make good technical judgments on this level of security mechanisms. The IETF really has the right expertise to do this, and it should. It may not specify how to, for example, establish a PKI. It should specify the protocols and crypto mechanisms. We could have options if the rationale for choosing was explained. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Dawson, Martin [mailto:Martin.Dawson@andrew.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:14 PM > To: Tom-PT Taylor; Brian Rosen > Cc: GEOPRIV; Marc Linsner > Subject: RE: [Geopriv]WGLCondraft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00(PIDF- > LOdigitalsignatures) > > Hear hear. > > There are continually arguments about what we are requiring the > implementors to implement. Despite the undoubted brain power in the > room, it's not going to be possible to assess the needs and > applicability for every emergency jurisdiction in the world and come up > with an exact fit for everyone. Not every jurisdiction may require > location from access operators, not every one of those may require it be > signed, and those that do will establish their own organizations and > processes around certificate management. > > The toolkit to build to their regional policies is exactly what we are > giving them. > > Cheers, > Martin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom-PT Taylor [mailto:taylor@nortel.com] > Sent: Friday, 9 March 2007 2:40 AM > To: Brian Rosen > Cc: GEOPRIV; Marc Linsner > Subject: Re: > [Geopriv]WGLCondraft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00(PIDF-LOdigitalsignatures) > > I think what this thread is leading to is that: > > -- national/regional regulatory authorities will impose regulations that > imply a > particular technical means of defence against fraudulent calls > > -- that means national/regional rather than IETF standardization of > these > technical means > > -- the role of the IETF is limited to provision of the toolkit and > making sure > they don't get in the way. > > Brian Rosen wrote: > > We're going to require ALL access providers to provide location. ALL > of > > them. It's not unreasonable to ask them to get a cert from the local > 9-1-1 > > authority (or some contractor they appoint) as part of that > obligation. We > > probably are going to have regulation to make "ALL" work. Getting the > cert > > can be part of that. There will be extenuating circumstances. They > will > > create exploitable holes. I think we can manage that reasonably well, > but > > some threat will remain. > > > > > > > > Brian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, March > 08, 2007 > > 9:38 AM To: 'Brian Rosen' Cc: 'GEOPRIV' Subject: RE: > > > [Geopriv]WGLCondraft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00(PIDF-LOdigitalsignatures) > > > > > > > > Brian, > > > > > > > > 'a local 9-1-1 authority knows the local access network providers' > > > > > > > > Do you actually believe this going forward? > > > > > > > > Yes, there is the assertion made about a limited set of physical > access > > providers and I agree that NYC 9-1-1 authority probably knows about > the <10 > > legacy providers. But a 10 second search for public Internet access > in NYC > > produces nothing short of hundreds of providers. As you state, > Enterprise is > > a problem. Are you considering the 100s of providers my search > produced as > > Enterprise? > > > > > > > > -Marc- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Geopriv mailing list > Geopriv@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- > ---------------------- > This message is for the designated recipient only and may > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of > this email is prohibited. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- > ---------------------- > [mf2] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 8 Mar 2007 19:36:21 -0600

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 09 2007 - 04:38:21 EST