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

["Winterbottom, James" <James.Winterbottom at andrew.com>]

This has nothing what-so-ever to do with what I think the Internet is or
is not. You, Stephen, Randy and to some extent Keith have argued that
3GPP is somehow special and exempt from these specifications because it
can, in some circumstances, provide its own emergency calling
procedures. 

I have highlighted, more than once, that 3G networks are also deployed
as broadband services in the same way that other ISP services are
provided and that these should be subject to the ECRIT specifications.
The argument that 3GPP is somehow "special" in these cases does not
apply.

To your comment on section 4, it says "should", not must, so the text is
a recommendation and not a mandate, as a manufacturer of 3G terminal
equipment Qualcomm is free to ignore this advice.

The only rationale I can see for continuing to push for these
applicability statements is to provide certain companies with a clear
reference to say to operators and other standards bodies, "look, ECRIT
doesn't apply here it says so", something that I think the vast majority
of people on this list do not agree with!

Cheers
James


-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie at qualcomm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2009 10:29 AM
To: Winterbottom, James; Richard Barnes
Cc: ecrit at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Why an applicability statement to framework and BCP
is not required

At 3:05 PM -0700 3/25/09, Winterbottom, James wrote:
>Actually Ted I don't recall see an explicit reference to a 3GPP
specification that address the problem I have described below. Indeed my
recollection, admittedly it has been some time since I have looked at
the 3GPP solution in detail, was that this deployment is deemed out of
scope. That is, 3GPP do not have a solution for it, but recognize it as
being an issue. ECRIT fills this hole. Applicability to only packet
deployments is not in question I hope, consequently how that packet is
provided is also, I hope, not an issue, otherwise need to consider
applicability to every other type of physical access network. Indeed
this same argument can be posed for every IETF protocol or framework
document.
>
>If we have to have an applicability statement, and I don't think we do,
then it should be even more simple than what has been currently
proposed.
>
>"This document applies to all devices and networks that participate in
Internet emergency calling".

That's a pretty major revision of Framework, Section 4.  That claims to
consider all
private networks using IP.  See:

   Devices that create media sessions and exchange audio, video and/or
   text, and have the capability to establish sessions to a wide variety
   of addresses, and communicate over private IP networks or the
   Internet, should support emergency calls.

If you are meeting that remit, you need to acknowledge that other
functional entities exist and are currently doing their best to get
the emergency calls to their responders.  If you want to limit
this to something that passes *your* view of what constitutes
the Internet, then we have a bigger problem.

Again, just speaking for myself,
				Ted

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]