Re: [Ecrit] emergency call termination

[<g.caron at bell.ca>]

Thanks John for your comments.

Please find some replies inline.

                                                       
Guy Caron
-----Message d'origine-----
De : James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk at cisco.com] 
Envoyé : 10 juillet 2008 16:19
À : Caron, Guy (A162859); ecrit at ietf.org
Cc : nena-i2_5 at listserv.neustar.biz
Objet : Re: [Ecrit] emergency call termination

At 02:31 PM 7/7/2008, g.caron at bell.ca wrote:
>NENA wishes to express that this behavior, while desired or mandated in
>certain jurisdictions, is undesirable in others. For example, the
>majority of the U.S. jurisdictions do not use this feature and prefer to
>allow the caller to release an emergency call.

Guy --

First off, IETF is not all about the US or North America, , so just 
because some US jurisdictions practice a capability one way, doesn't 
mean the whole proposal needs to change.

[GC] I do appreciate the global scope of the IETF. I simply wanted to give one tangible example where the PSAP do not want to enforce PSAP control over call termination. There may be others that I'm not aware of. It is my understanding that other countries require it. Japan (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arai-ecrit-japan-req-01) and Canada are known examples.

Second, if the caller wants to hang up the phone, the call taker is 
going to hang up also.

[GC] The call taker may in fact hang-up if he feels it is the appropriate thing to do. It may however decide to pursue the conversation if, for example, he was not able to confirm all the information required to properly process that call. Please refer to the previous post (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg05276.html) that describes some features that can be invoked by the call taker in this situation. Comments are also welcome on this one :-).

  Why can't the call taker be the one in charge of this BYE?

[GC] He definitively should if that's the PSAP's normal operation to keep control over call termination. But this may not be the case for all PSAPs.

Didn't Canada just have a bad situation occur in which the location 
of a caller resulted in the death of a boy?  The case involved a 
family that was using residential VoIP, and the call taker didn't ask 
where they lived; instead relying on "the system" to tell the call 
taker where the call originated. The family had moved to Calgary from 
the Winnipeg or Toronto area (I can't remember which) and the first 
responders went to their old location. The one from the form they had 
to fill out by hand, informing anyone who called in on IP, that this 
is where to send the responders.

[GC] Indeed, a very unfortunate and dramatic event that we all wish would never happen. My understanding of the series of events is not exactly as you described. You are right though that the location information "on file" was wrong. The "system" in this case was not the E9-1-1 infrastructure though.

Personally, I think the call taker shouldn't have relied on the 
system, and simply asked where the caller was located.

[GC] My understanding is that he did ask verbally for the location. Apparently because of a language barrier, it did not get acknowledged before the call was dropped.

  But I'm sure if that information hadn't been given, and the call taker wanted it (but for some reason delayed asking for it), they would want to have the ability to prevent the caller from hanging up.  This is one way 
for that not to occur.

[GC] Absolutely.

At the end of the day, if both caller and call taker want the call to 
end, does it make a difference who's hang-up or <end> button sends 
the BYE?  It's gonna happen at about the same time, give or take a 
half a second.

[GC] In normal circumstances, I agree.


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