Re: [Ecrit] Why an applicability statement to framework and BCP is not required

[Ted Hardie <hardie at qualcomm.com>]

At 11:27 AM -0700 3/25/09, Richard Barnes wrote:
>This argument is pretty persuasive.  Could someone who wants to add
>something propose a paragraph and explain why the below doesn't apply?
>If no such text is forthcoming, ISTM that we should go ahead with the
>document as it is.
>--Richard

Actually, the argument James puts forward below seems pretty much
the same as he put forward in late February, and which Stephen
answered then (Feb 26th, at least as it arrived to me).

It is pretty obvious that we're not going to get to full or measurable rough
consensus on this, and I thought Brian's text was a very useful step in getting
us to a working compromise.  Going back over discussions that led us to the
conclusion that we weren't going to get consensus doesn't seem likely to move
us forward much.

I can't speak for anyone else, but moving forward with text discussions
to see if there is a compromise statement here seems more likely to get
us out of these weeds.

Two cents,
			Ted

>Winterbottom, James wrote:
>> I agree with the people that have said this debate is farcical.
>>
>> 
>>
>> Cellular carriers can and do market their 3G services as wireless
>> broadband. In a number of cases, and I can't believe that it is only
>> here, services provide open Internet connectivity allowing access to
>> independent voice service providers (not IMS). When these services are
>> sold in this manner, they are still cellular, but the carrier is really
>> just an ISP and the ECRIT model for emergency calling is as applicable
>> to them as it is for any DSL ISP. Any specific "cellular" emergency call
>> procedures are not invoked, the carrier by the very nature of the
>> service they are selling has broken the access-to-voice-service link.
>> This makes the ECRIT architecture applicable.
>>
>> 
>>
>> The result is that no applicability statement is required in the ECRIT
>> documents. Indeed, unless specific statements in the 3GPP specifications
>> are made to say that open Internet services SHALL NOT be provided
>> through these technologies I can't see how ECRIT is not applicable to
>> cellular. I can't see 3GPP adding such a statement, and I think that
>> their primary customers would go up in arms if they did. I propose that
>> the applicability statement resolution be dropped unless the proponents
>> of these applicability statements can stand up and say that open
>> Internet services over 3GPP networks don't happen now and will not
>> happen in the future or they can point us to a 3GPP specification that
>> describes how a totally decoupled access and voice service can deliver
>> an emergency call to the correct PSAP.
>>
>> 
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> James
>>
>> 
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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