Apart from Richard’s original statement,
which I think parses to be the opposite of intent, I think we’re all agreeing…
Richard’s original statement was:
> To be clear, it's the *Internet* Service Provider, not the *Voice*
> Service Provider, which may or may not be there.
That statement actually says that the ISP
may or may not be there. I don’t think anybody actually thinks an Internet emergency
call can be made without some access to the Internet… J
Cheers,
Martin
From:
Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen at neustar.biz]
Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2009 1:36
PM
To: rbarnes at bbn.com; Dawson,
Martin
Cc: ecrit at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Proposal to
add "applicability" statementto -framework/-phonebcp
No.
The ISP requirements are unwaivering.
[[MCD]] “requirements
are unwaivering” = “it has requirements” in my book. So I think we’re saying
the same thing.
The VSP requirements change. The VSP, not the
ISP adds location and route, not the ISP.
[[MCD]] “requirements
change” = “may not be there” by the same token. The device may query the LIS
and LoST and send the INVITE directly to the PSAP URI… so, yes, the ISP doesn’t
do it but nor is it necessary for some VSP to do it. I think that’s what we’re
all saying.
Brian
------Original Message------
From: Richard Barnes
To: Dawson, Martin
Cc: Brian Rosen
Cc: ECRIT
Sent: Mar 23, 2009 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Proposal to add "applicability"
statementto -framework/-phonebcp
That's what I meant:
-- ISP plays a role in Framework (i.e., it has requirements)
-- VSP does not (no requirements - may not be there)
Dawson, Martin
wrote:
> Isn't that the other way around? The VSP may or may not be there?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org]
On Behalf
> Of Richard Barnes
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2009 10:56 AM
> To: Rosen, Brian
> Cc: ECRIT
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Proposal to add "applicability" statementto
> -framework/-phonebcp
>
> To be clear, it's the *Internet* Service Provider, not the *Voice*
> Service Provider, which may or may not be there.
>
> In summary, s/IP access network/Internet Service Provider/
>
>
> Rosen, Brian wrote:
>> Nah, it's not the access network (AN) it's the calling service
> provider
>> (SP) that is affected. The examples are adding location (who
adds the
>> Geolocation header) and the LoST query. Both of those would be
done
> by
>> the SIP calling network in, for example, an IMS system.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes at bbn.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:27 PM
>> To: Rosen, Brian
>> Cc: ECRIT
>> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Proposal to add "applicability"
statement to
>> -framework/-phonebcp
>>
>> Editorial changes:
>>
>> This document describes an architecture for emergency calling in the
>> typical Internet environment, in which the calling device bears most
> of
>>
------Original Message Truncated------
--------------------------
Brian Rosen
NeuStar
(724) 382-1051
brian.rosen at neustar.biz