[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Ecrit] Proposal to add"applicability" statementto -framework/-phonebcp
I was doing fine with the course of this discussion till this
"interoperability" word came into the picture. I'm not convinced we have
an "interoperability issue". I do think that how this framework
"interconnects" to other networks is something that is not covered in
this document, and that it would be ok to say that this isn't covered.
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Brian Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 4:15 PM
To: 'Richard Barnes'
Cc: 'Dawson, Martin'; ecrit at ietf.org; Rosen,Brian
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Proposal to add"applicability" statementto
-framework/-phonebcp
Better. "Voice" is too limiting.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes at bbn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 3:04 PM
To: Brian Rosen
Cc: 'Dawson, Martin'; Rosen, Brian; ecrit at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Proposal to add "applicability" statementto
-framework/-phonebcp
Aha, I get it. So both types of service provider show up.
-- The ISP MUST provide location information (in either case)
-- The VSP MAY add location and route calls
Does the following capture it? (Also added a call out to
"interoperability issues" to address Mr. Gellens' concern):
This document describes an architecture for emergency calling in the
typical Internet environment, in which the calling device bears most of
the burden of implementing emergency calls, and the caller's Internet
Service Provider has a supporting role. The caller's Voice Service
Provider plays a minor role, if such a provider is present at all. The
underlying specifications do allow for the Voice Service Provider to
take a more expansive role in emergency calls. However, such cases and
any associated issues (e.g., interoperability issues) are not covered
extensively in this document; rather, they are left for future study in
other documents.
--Richard
Brian Rosen wrote:
> Richard
>
> We're not communicating. Where your sentence says "Internet Service
> Provider", I want it changed to "calling network service provider".
It is
> the network that would add location and route calls, not the ISP. The
ISP
> supplies location in both scenarios. The difference is to whom (the
end
> device or the proxy in the calling network).
>
> Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Richard Barnes
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:26 PM
> To: Dawson, Martin
> Cc: Rosen, Brian; ecrit at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Proposal to add "applicability" statementto
> -framework/-phonebcp
>
> Yes, I think we all agree, and agree that my original sentence was
> poorly constructed.
>
> Updated proposal:
>
> This document describes an architecture for emergency calling in the
> typical Internet environment, in which the calling device bears most
of
> the burden of implementing emergency calls, and the caller's Internet
> Service Provider has a supporting role. The underlying specifications
> allow for the network to take a more expansive role in emergency
calls,
> but such cases (and any associated issues) are not covered extensively
> in this document; rather, they are left for future study in other
> documents.
>
>
> Dawson, Martin wrote:
>> 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... :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> --------------------
>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may
>> contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
>> If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
>> immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
>> this email is prohibited.
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> --------------------
>> [mf2]
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
*****
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA621