[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Ecrit] Why an applicability statement to framework and BCP is not required
>"This document applies to all devices and networks that participate in
>Internet emergency calling".
I think this is a good clarification. ietf defines 'internet emergency calling', 3gpp and other similar SDOs define 'IMS emergency calling'. They are not, and they do not have to be the same thing.
On the other hand, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-08.txt is a collection of requirements, thus a better title for it would be 'Requirements for Internet Emergency Calling' and an Intended Status of Standards Track instead of BCP.
And the above applicability statement could say:
"This document is a collection of requirements for devices and networks that participate in Internet Emergency Calling"
- gabor
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>ext Winterbottom, James
>Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:05 PM
>To: Ted Hardie; Richard Barnes
>Cc: ecrit at ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Why an applicability statement to framework and BCP
>is not required
>
>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".
>
>This wording has been carefully chosen to say Internet. In all the
>scenarios that Stephen has raised he is describing very specific IMS
>environments, and while these may be IP, they are not Internet, they are
>walled gardens, and in these you can do what ever you want. If 3G
>operators want to provide open Internet connectivity then these
>specifications do apply to them and they need to adhere to them.
>
>Cheers
>James
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie at qualcomm.com]
>Sent: Wed 3/25/2009 4:52 PM
>To: Richard Barnes; Winterbottom, James
>Cc: ecrit at ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Why an applicability statement to framework and BCP
>is not required
>
>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
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------
>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