[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs
At 04:21 AM 12/31/2008, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
Hi all,
In the last few months we have seen increased interest in the topic of
PSAP call backs.
Section 10 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-06
says:
SP-36 Call backs to the Contact: header URI recieved within 30
minutes of an emergency call must reach the device regardless of call
features or services that would normally cause the call to be routed
to some other entity.
More importantly, Section 13 says:
ED-73 Call backs SHOULD be determined by retaining the domain of the
PSAP which answers an outgoing emergency call and instantiating a
timer which starts when the call is terminated. If a call is
received from the same domain and within the timer period, sent to
the Contact: or AoR used in the emergency call, it should be assumed
to be a call back. The suggested timer period is 5 minutes.
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-patel-ecrit-sos-parameter-01.txt proposed
another solution based on marking the callback using the "sos" URI
parameter.
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-name
space/ proposes another solution by utilizing the Resource Priority
Header.
within the namespace ID, the total thought (for PSAP callback) is here:
This namespace will also be used
for communications between emergency authorities, and MAY be used
for emergency authorities calling public citizens. An example of
the later is a PSAP operator calling back someone who previously
called 9111/112/999 and the communication was terminated before it
should have been (in the operator's judgment).
Notice this is all based on the MAY in the first sentence, therefore
it can be considered an afterthought, i.e., something that can be
utilized/specified later.
the "sos" parameter solution is more definitive, yet it should
identify a priority marking (in SIP), given that there is already a
defined way to do that in SIP, and a second way shouldn't be defined
- as it will only lead to interoperability issues.
So, here are my high-level questions:
A) Do you think that you understand the requirements that lead to a need
for a technical solution?
B) Do you believe that more work beyond the mechanism described in Phone
BCP is needed?
Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit