I think the text you have highlighted is confusing.
While car-crash may build on the internet-draft ecall to create another
service, the service defined as ecall by EC and by the various European and
3GPP standards does not require or have any dependence on car-crash at all (or
indeed any relationship).
I agree this does need to be clearer.
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecrit [mailto:ecrit-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dan
Romascanu
Sent: 05 January 2017 11:14
To: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ecrit(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [Ecrit] Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-20
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Almost Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-20
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2017-01-05
IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-06
IESG Telechat date: 2017-01-19
Summary:
It's a good and useful document which needs to be read and understood together
with the eCall document, and other relevant documents from EC, NENA, APCOT.
There is at least one major issue that deserves discussion and clarification
before approval, IMO.
Major issues:
1. One aspect of the relationship with eCall is unclear to me.
The Abstract says:
This document is an extension
of the eCall document, with the primary differences being that this
document makes the MSD data set optional and VEDS mandatory, and adds
attribute values to the metadata/control object to permit greater
functionality.
Then in the Introduction:
This document reuses the technical aspects of next-generation pan-
European eCall (a mandated and standardized system for emergency
calls by in-vehicle systems within Europe), as described in
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-ecall]. However, this document specifies a different
set of vehicle (crash) data, specifically, the Vehicle Emergency Data
Set (VEDS) rather than the eCall Minimum Set of Data (MSD).
and in Section 9:
This document extends [I-D.ietf-ecrit-ecall] by reusing the call
set-
up and other normative requirements with the exception that in this
document, support for the eCall MSD is OPTIONAL and support for VEDS
in REQUIRED.
First of all it's not clear if by 'eCall document' what it's meant is the
European document or draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall. Second it's not clear how the two
IETF documents, both on standards track relate, when the status of the MSD and
VEDS data sets are different. What would prevail? The IESG is asked to approve
two document, both on standards track, with different and in this case
contradictory content. If I am a car manufacturer, I would ask myself what
support will be mandatory to implement? Or maybe there are different scenarios
where the different data sets are recommended? But then should not support for
both be mandatory to implement and optional to use, maybe per geographical
area? After all vehicles cross borders, or are transported / exported over the
seas nowadays.
Minor issues:
1. In the Abstract:
... this document specifies a different set of vehicle (crash)
data, specifically, the Vehicle Emergency Data Set (VEDS) ...
Actually VEDS is not specified in this document, but by APCO and NENA and
referred by this document.
2. In section 4:
In the paired model, the IVS uses a Bluetooth link with a
previously-
paired handset to establish an emergency call
Is Bluetooth only an example, or only one standard way of establishing a paired
communication in the legacy example? I suspect the later - so I suggest that
the text is reformulated in this manner.
3. I am not an expert in this area but I wonder whether the initial values of
the registry in 14.6 are aligned with car manufacturers standards. For example
I am wondering if lamps that change colors should not be also included.
4. I am not an expert in this area but I wonder whether the initial values of
the registry in 14.7 are aligned with car manufacturers standards. For example
I am wondering why night-vision capability is provided only for the front
cameras.
Nits/editorial comments:
1. I believe that the European eCall requirements documents 16062 and
16072 need to be Informative References.
2. Add an informative reference for Bluetooth mentioned in Section 4.
3. Section 16 needs to be removed at publication.
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit