--- 1/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-22.txt 2017-01-19 20:13:25.395457813 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-23.txt 2017-01-19 20:13:25.479459791 -0800 @@ -1,21 +1,21 @@ ECRIT R. Gellens Internet-Draft Core Technology Consulting Intended status: Standards Track B. Rosen -Expires: July 22, 2017 NeuStar, Inc. +Expires: July 23, 2017 NeuStar, Inc. H. Tschofenig Individual - January 18, 2017 + January 19, 2017 Next-Generation Vehicle-Initiated Emergency Calls - draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-22.txt + draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-23.txt Abstract This document describes how to use IP-based emergency services mechanisms to support the next generation of emergency calls placed by vehicles (automatically in the event of a crash or serious incident, or manually invoked by a vehicle occupant) and conveying vehicle, sensor, and location data related to the crash or incident. Such calls are often referred to as "Automatic Crash Notification" (ACN), or "Advanced Automatic Crash Notification" (AACN), even in the @@ -53,21 +53,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on July 22, 2017. + This Internet-Draft will expire on July 23, 2017. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -108,34 +108,34 @@ 14.7. The emergencyCallData.eCall.VEDS SIP INFO package . . . 33 15. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 16. Changes from Previous Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 16.1. Changes from draft-ietf-18 to draft-ietf-19 . . . . . . 37 16.2. Changes from draft-ietf-17 to draft-ietf-18 . . . . . . 37 16.3. Changes from draft-ietf-16 to draft-ietf-17 . . . . . . 37 16.4. Changes from draft-ietf-14 to draft-ietf-15 . . . . . . 37 16.5. Changes from draft-ietf-13 to draft-ietf-14 . . . . . . 37 16.6. Changes from draft-ietf-11 to draft-ietf-13 . . . . . . 37 16.7. Changes from draft-ietf-10 to draft-ietf-11 . . . . . . 37 - 16.8. Changes from draft-ietf-09 to draft-ietf-10 . . . . . . 37 + 16.8. Changes from draft-ietf-09 to draft-ietf-10 . . . . . . 38 16.9. Changes from draft-ietf-08 to draft-ietf-09 . . . . . . 38 16.10. Changes from draft-ietf-07 to draft-ietf-08 . . . . . . 38 16.11. Changes from draft-ietf-06 to draft-ietf-07 . . . . . . 38 16.12. Changes from draft-ietf-05 to draft-ietf-06 . . . . . . 38 16.13. Changes from draft-ietf-04 to draft-ietf-05 . . . . . . 38 16.14. Changes from draft-ietf-03 to draft-ietf-04 . . . . . . 38 16.15. Changes from draft-ietf-02 to draft-ietf-03 . . . . . . 39 16.16. Changes from draft-ietf-01 to draft-ietf-02 . . . . . . 39 16.17. Changes from draft-ietf-00 to draft-ietf-01 . . . . . . 39 16.18. Changes from draft-gellens-02 to draft-ietf-00 . . . . . 39 16.19. Changes from draft-gellens-01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . 39 16.20. Changes from draft-gellens-00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . 39 - 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 + 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 17.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 1. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. @@ -1250,21 +1250,27 @@ infrastructure) or due to a malfunctioning device. The reader is referred to [RFC7378] for a discussion of some of these vulnerabilities. In addition to the security considerations discussion specific to the metadata/control object in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-ecall], note that vehicles MAY decline to carry out any requested action (e.g., if the vehicle requires but is unable to verify the certificate used to sign the request). The vehicle MAY use any value in the reason registry to indicate why it did not take an action (e.g., the generic "unable" or - the more specific "security-failure"). + the more specific "security-failure"). Because some actions carry + more potential risk than others (e.g., unlocking a door versus + flashing lights), vehicle policy MAY decline to carry out some + requests in some circumstances (e.g., declining a request to unlock + doors, send an updated VEDS, or enable a camera received in a + vehicle-terminated call while carrying out such requests received in + a vehicle-initiated emergency call). 13. Privacy Considerations Since this document builds on [I-D.ietf-ecrit-ecall], which itself builds on [RFC7852], the data structures specified there, and the corresponding privacy considerations discussed there, apply here as well. The VEDS data structure contains optional elements that can carry identifying and personal information, both about the vehicle and about the owner, as well as location information, and so needs to be protected against unauthorized disclosure, as discussed in @@ -1821,26 +1824,27 @@ [RFC7852] 16.20. Changes from draft-gellens-00 to -01 o Now using 'EmergencyCallData' for purpose parameter values and MIME subtypes, in accordance with changes to [RFC7852] o Added reference to RFC 6443 o Fixed bug that caused Figure captions to not appear 17. References + 17.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-ecrit-ecall] Gellens, R. and H. Tschofenig, "Next-Generation Pan- - European eCall", draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-21 (work in - progress), December 2016. + European eCall", draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-24 (work in + progress), January 2017. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, .