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

["Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net>]

>> 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.

Ted, isn't that essentially saying something like: 
"If you (James) stop arguing against the ideas we (Ted, Stephen, Randy) have
in mind we could get much faster to the result we like. 
"

I think that James asks fair questions since he tries to understand what you
(and your co-workers) are unhappy about. This is particularly a fair
question given that you have been participating in the ECRIT working group
for a long time (and co-author one of the core documents) and have not
raised your concerns earlier. 

Ciao
Hannes


>Sorry, that was meant to be the more important thrust of my message.
>
>Ted, you've been one of the people arguing that text is needed 
>-- could you propose some?
>
>--Richard
>
>
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>Ecrit at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>