On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/18 4:31 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Adam Roach [mailto:a...@nostrum.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 3:34 PM
>>> Cc: Kathleen Moriarty; The IESG; opsawg@ietf.org; Warren Kumari; Paul
>>> Hoffman; draft-mm-wg-effect-encr...@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17:
>>> (with COMMENT)
>>>> On Feb 9, 2018, at 10:21, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmor...@att.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> If you are notified by SMS, what happens next?
>>>> Does the SMS suggest that you call customer care to resolve the issue
>>>> (which might be less efficient than accessing your account on the web,
>>>> and authorizing additional Data Usage) ?
>>> No, you access your account on the web.
>> [ACM]
>> Good, that's a nice SMS-based work-around for HTTP Re-direct.
>> There are customers with no-SMS service, like laptops
>> with embedded or USB cellular modems. Got a good idea for them?
> Ah, that's a use case I hadn't considered. I suppose, since we aren't
> dealing with solutions in this document, explaining that a well-deployed and
> superior solution exists for the majority of mobile data users is a bit out
> of scope. I withdraw my objection to the statement, but would find a mention
> that problem this arises exclusively (or at least primarily) for non-SMS
> customers to be a significant improvement.

Thanks, Adam.  To try to stay neutral in tone and present the facts,
how about the following additional text:

While there are well deployed alternate SMS- based solutions that do
not involve out of specification protocol interception, this is still
an unsolved problem for non-SMS users.

If you have tweaks, please propose them.  I'll put this in the running
version and change if needed.

> /a


Best regards,

OPSAWG mailing list

Reply via email to