TITLE: Contribution on Display Guidelines

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Submission doc.: IEEE /XXXXr0 Month Year John Doe, Some CompanySlide 1 Insert Presentation Title Here Date: YYYY-MM-DD Authors: Notice: This document.

Advertisements

July 2004 Jay Bain, Fearn Consulting doc.: IEEE /0379r0 Submission Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

Doc.: IEEE /0076r0 Submission Jan 2006 Tom Siep, Cambridge Silicon Radio PlcSlide 1 Coexistence TAG Liaison Report Notice: This document has been.

TITLE: Contribution on Display Guidelines

January 2014 doc.: IEEE /0084r0 July 2014

Submission Title: [Add name of submission]

ATIS/SIP Forum IP NNI Task Force Tyson's Corner, VA November 7-8, 2017

IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN:

Submission Title: [Recommended Ranging Signal Waveforms]

<month year> doc.: IEEE < e>

June 2006 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Proposed Scenarios for Usage Model Document.

Submission Title: [MC EventsList] Date Submitted: [11Jul00]

October 2017 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [AES-256 for ] Date Submitted: [17.

Jul 12, /12/10 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: Coexistence Brainstorming Date.

<month year> March, 2005

October 2017 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [AES-256 for ] Date Submitted: [17.

<month year> doc.: IEEE < e>

TITLE: Contribution on Vertical Service Codes (VSC) Action Item

<month year> doc.: IEEE <030158r0> March 2004

July 2005 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [FCC-UWB-certifications-below-1-GHz] Date Submitted:

Submission Title: [WG-Treasurer’s Report Sept04]

Project: IEEE Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

March 2008 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Toumaz response to TG6 Call for Applications]

January 2007 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [TG3c Technical Requirement sub-group report]

<month year> doc.: IEEE < e>

TITLE: Baseline Display Guidelines SOURCE*: Hala Mowafy (Ericsson)

Possible Effects of FCC rules to design

< Sept > Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [IG LPWA Draft Call for Contributions]

August, 2008 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Enhancing reliability of data transmission.

<month year> doc.: IEEE < e>

FCC rules and design Date: Authors: October 2010

IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: bcast

Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Comments on proposed HRP enhancements by NXP and DW]

Rate Control for GAS Requests

平成31年2月 doc.: IEEE /424r1 November 2008

Submission Title: [Uniform bandplan for TG4a Modulation]

doc.: IEEE /XXXr0 Sep 19, 2007 June 2009

Submission Title: [Frame and packet structure in ]

November 2006 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Simplified geometry for the usage model.

<month year> doc.: IEEE <030158r0> January 2004

<month year> doc.: IEEE a Nov 2006

Submission Title: [UWB Forum Liaison Report]

IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN:

Submission Title: PHY Layer Comment Resolution

March 2019 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [DF6 Radio-burst length over PSDU size] Date.

March 2018 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: Summary of PHY proposals Date Submitted: March.

Submission Title: [SFD comparison] Date Submitted: [18−July−2006]

Submission Title: [SFD comparison] Date Submitted: [18−July−2006]

IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: bcast

Air Efficiency and Reliability Enhancements for Multicast

IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN:

Possible Action Items Date: Author:

End-to-End QoS awareness for admission control

Submission Title: [SFD comparison] Date Submitted: [18−July−2006]

<month year> doc.: IEEE <030158r0> <March 2003>

11k Public Awareness Program

Mar 2008 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Resolution for Comment 70 ] Date Submitted:

May 2008 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: THz Closing Report – May 2008 Date Submitted:

Mar 2008 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Resolution for Comment 70 ] Date Submitted:

Task 13 Scope – Model Structure (L=ChrisH)

August, 2008 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Improve the latency between GTS request.

IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: Title: Your Title Here

July 2003 doc.: IEEE <03/242> July 2003

Jul 12, /12/10 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: Dependable Interest Group Closing.

Submission Title: TG9ma Agenda for September Meeting

August 2019 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: MLME-SOUNDING and MLME-CALIBRATE comment.

E911 Bits Date: Authors: May 2007 Month Year

August 2019 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: MLME-SOUNDING and MLME-CALIBRATE comment.

May 2015 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: Source identification Date Submitted: May, 2015.

12/15/2019 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [AWGN Simulation Results] Date Submitted:

Presentation transcript:

TITLE: Contribution on Display Guidelines ATIS PTSC Denver, Colorado August 2-3, 2017 Contribution TITLE: Contribution on Display Guidelines SOURCE*: Hala Mowafy (Ericsson) and Jonathan Nelson (Hiya) _______________________________ Abstract This presentation aims to progress discussion on the desired treatment of STIR/SHAKEN data and analytics to help develop display guidelines. NOTICE This contribution has been prepared to assist the ATIS PTSC. This document is offered to the Committee as a basis for discussion and is not a binding agreement on Ericsson or any other company. The requirements are subject to change in form and numerical value after more study. Ericsson specifically reserves the right to add to, or withdraw, the statements contained CONTACT: Hala Mowafy email: hala.mowafy@ericsson.com

Discussion Points Raw data from STIR/SHAKEN attestation + certificate verification vs. Analytics. Advantages of using Analytics Call assessment services - the potential categories: Relying only on STIR/SHAKEN and certificate verification only Including some form of analytics The discussion in this presentation applies to consumer markets.

The Data We Have STIR/SHAKEN data and Certificate verification are useful for Traceability Accountability Enforcement ..but does not help determine the intent of the caller (malicious or not) Analytics can statistically assess the risk using: reported TNs (FTC & FCC lists) social media reputation data STIR/SHAKEN and certificate verification results

Network Data vs. Analytics Availability of network data (STIR/SHAKEN) and analytics is expected to vary with time and carrier implementation. Depending on which set is available, the results could be overly cautious and inaccurate. End users may choose not to subscribe to an analytics service (even when available). Network data alone will not deliver the full picture and desired protection. STIR/SHAKEN is not a service; it is just one of many tools to implement the service. Analytics alone could provide a reasonable level of protection.

Advantages of using Analytics Can adapt to new scam patterns in a timely manner. Access to more data about the caller. Threshold levels can be adjusted. Subscribers can select from different levels of analytics services (basic to advanced). NOTE: Subscribers are in a “contract” with the analytics provider and are aware of the possible false positives and negatives that they may receive

Decision Points for Recommendations Should the guidelines recommend “always direct network data as input to the analytics when analytics are involved”? I.e., rely on the analytics if analytics are available. When only network data is available, should the guidelines recommend not to base the display solely on it? What do the various levels of attestation and verification truly convey about the caller?