Hi Dan,
Thanks for your review. Please see in-line.
At 3:13 AM -0800 1/5/17, Dan Romascanu wrote:
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.
My understanding is that references are frowned upon in Abstracts,
otherwise there would be a reference to the IETF eCall draft there.
I did change "extension of the eCall document" to "extension of the
IETF eCall document" to try and make this more clear.
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.
There is no conflict, as the eCall document applies to regions that
adhere to the E.U. eCall system, and this document applies to other
regions. I added the following sentence to the paragraphs in the
Abstract and Introduction:
A vehicle designed for multiple regions will
comply with the document applicable to the region in which it is
located.
The eCall document already says (in Document Scope):
Note that vehicles designed for multiple regions might need to
support eCall and other Advanced Automatic Crash Notification (AACN)
systems (such as described in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-car-crash]), but this
is out of scope of this document.
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.
I'll change "specifies" to "specifies use of".
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.
Ok, I changed it to "a local link (typically Bluetooth)".
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.
The goal is that the initial values capture values that are widely
supported by vehicles and likely to be useful to PSAPs.
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.
The values were picked based on what's most supported, but I will add
rear and side night-vision to the initial values.
Nits/editorial comments:
1. I believe that the European eCall requirements documents 16062 and
16072 need to be Informative References.
EU eCall requirements are referenced in the eCall draft, which this
draft normatively references, and are not directly used in this
draft, so I don't see that it's useful to add them here.
2. Add an informative reference for Bluetooth mentioned in Section 4.
OK.
3. Section 16 needs to be removed at publication.
I'll add a note.
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty
when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are
naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment
by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
--Louis D. Brandeis