RE: [Geopriv] NENA Requirements

The discourse has been rife with concrete policy examples - and Brian just added his version two posts ago. The arguments against location signing have been "Certificate management is too complicated - people won't succeed" and "PSAPs answer all the calls anyway so there's no point". In the case of the former, I accept NENA's word for it that they understand the problem space and can make a successful judgement with respect to succeeding. The membership consists of everyone from the carrier space through to the PSAPs. The constant repetition of the second point only emphasises that people don't understand how the credentials can be used. The requirements have been spelt out - and location signing has been proffered as the solution. The nay-sayers position is that the requirement should be discounted - they should offer a superior solution if they have one. I have never said that the IETF has no experts in the identified fields - have I? Cheers, Martin ________________________________ From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@hxr.us] Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2007 2:32 AM To: Dawson, Martin Cc: Brian Rosen; Ted Hardie; GEOPRIV; Marc Linsner Subject: Re: [Geopriv] NENA Requirements On Mar 13, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Dawson, Martin wrote: NENA are "the experts here" when it comes to requirements. People in this working group are trying to say what emergency services policy should be and I believe that belongs with NENA for the US and equivalent entities for other jurisdictions. Martin, I'm not sure what it is you are attempting to do, but to suggest that the IETF has no experts in the field of network security or Internet topology and cannot therefore apply that knowledge is quite simply wrong. Location signing has been offered as a requirement. It has been pointed out that location signing is a solution and not a requirement. It has also been pointed out that the notion of network topology that is being applied to VoIP by this solution does not match the way the Internet works. Also, it has been fair to question the actual use of location signing with respect to invalidly signed or unsigned location information. To date, nobody has offered an authoritative policy... it is all supposition. It seems rather silly to claim to be the authoritative voice on this issue when you cannot give concrete policy examples. -andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:55:20 -0500