Hannes:
I am happy with the changes outlined below. I am convinced they
make the document better. Thank you for attending to my comments.
On 09/27/2013 01:48 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi Vijay,
I updated the draft to take your remarks into account.
I liked the security requirements text to the security threats section,
as you suggested.
I believe you have a point regarding the remark about the security
solution. The current description focuses on the PSAP but not on the UA.
I assumed that we essentially inherit the functionality from the
PhoneBCP document but that should be expressed somewhere.
So, I added the following section to the draft:
----
The approach for dealing with implementing the security requirements
described in Section 5.2 can be differentiated between the behavior
applied by the UA and by SIP proxies. A UA that has made an
emergency call will keep state information so that it can recognize
and accepted a callback from the PSAP if it occurs within a
reasonable time after an emergency call was placed, as described in
Section 13 of [RFC6443]. Since UA considerations are described
already in [RFC6443] as well as in [RFC6881] the rest of this section
focuses on the behavior of SIP proxies.
-----
What do you think about that addition? Do you think it addresses your
concern?
Cheers,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
