Re: [Ecrit] call marking

["James M. Polk" <jmpolk at cisco.com>]

At 02:42 PM 1/4/2007 -0500, Andrew Newton wrote:
> I'm not sure where we left off with this issue, but it needs to be
> resolved.
>
> Previously, I leaned toward the sos URN in the request URI (I believe
> this was Henning's suggestion).  I no longer think this is a good
> idea, because the request URI is actively used in emergency calls
> today, many times containing psuedo-codes relevant to call routing.
> Admittedly, this is an artifact of gatewaying to the PSTN, but
> picking another method that would remain compatible with this
> practice seems to offer easier transition.

I agree with Andy that this indication needs to be somewhere other than the 
R-URI that may change or be otherwise not obvious (perhaps it is not 
following a certain "emergency" format we haven't come up with yet). I feel 
whatever the indication is, it needs to be obvious what it means.


> For the clueless, why is the Priority header with the "emergency"
> value not useable here?

The Priority header is for the recipient end user to determine how 
important the message was to the sender, and can get confused with other 
uses (such as a GETS (IEPREP) call, does that call also get marked as an 
emergency call)?

my 2 and a 3rd cents

James


> -andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit