Re: [Ecrit] emergency call termination

[<g.caron at bell.ca>]

James,

I'm not sure I understand the question but let me try this answer:

By "normal circumstances" I meant an emergency call being processed by a call taker until such time both agrees the call is over. In that plain vanilla case, both hang-ups would happen almost synchronously.

In other cases, both the caller and the call taker may not have the same notion of "the call is over". For some PSAPs, they want to rely on the ability to retain the connection. For other PSAPs, they don't use that.

The initial post was asking that the ability for a PSAP to control call termination be made optional and modulated by the location the device is currently in.

Let me know if I'm in the left field here.

Thanks,
                                                       
Guy Caron
-----Message d'origine-----
De : James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk at cisco.com] 
Envoyé : 10 juillet 2008 17:27
À : Caron, Guy (A162859); ecrit at ietf.org
Cc : nena-i2_5 at listserv.neustar.biz
Objet : RE: [Ecrit] emergency call termination

Guy

in-line below

At 04:00 PM 7/10/2008, g.caron at bell.ca wrote:
>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.

[JMP] I didn't mean to imply it was.

>  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.

[JMP] so, what are the non-normal circumstances you want this 
specified feature removed for, and how common (i.e., at what 
frequency) do they occur?


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