Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP

[<Gabor.Bajko at nokia.com>]

Hi Richard,


  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] 
  >On Behalf Of ext Richard Barnes
  >Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:51 PM
  >To: Randall Gellens
  >Cc: ecrit at ietf.org
  >Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
  >
  >> The phonebcp and framework documents are unusual in that they make 
  >> very broad claims to cover all emergency calls over IP.
  >
  >I don't think that's true.  From the Abstract and Introduction:
  >"
  >The IETF has standardized various aspects of placing 
  >emergency calls. 
  >This document describes how all of those component parts are 
  >used to support emergency calls from citizens and visitors 
  >to authorities.
  >...
  >This document focuses on how devices using the Internet can 
  >place emergency calls and how PSAPs can handle Internet 
  >multimedia emergency calls natively.
  >"

Which version did you quote from? The Abstract of version -09 says: 

"The IETF and other standards organization have efforts targeted at standardizing various aspects of placing emergency calls on IP networks.  This memo describes best current
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ practice on how devices, networks and services should use such standards to make emergency 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
calls."

And I think here's the problem, as the text is too generic. IMS is also an "IP network" and has different "best current practices".

I think all these differences could be resolved if the Intended Status of the document would be changed to Proposed Standard (instead of BCP), its title to "Requirements for Internet based Emergency Calls" and the Abstract to "The IETF efforts are targeted at
   standardizing various aspects of placing emergency calls over the Internet.  This memo describes requirements for devices, networks and services that should be supported in order to make emergency calls over the Internet".

The above minimal changes should be enough to differentiate the scope of this document from the 3GPP solution, as 3GPP calls their solution "IMS Emergency Sessions", thus there would not be a need for the controversial applicability statement.

- Gabor



  >Note the use of the word "can" (and we can switch the "are" 
  >in the abstract to "can" if that makes things better).  
  >Could you provide a pointer to the text that leads you to a 
  >different interpretation?
  >
  >> Per the definition of an applicability statement, all of 
  >phonebcp can 
  >> be considered to be one.
  >
  >Technically speaking, that seems to be accurate, but 
  >irrelevant to the current discussion.
  >
  >--Richard
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >> 
  >>>  RFC 2026 Section 3.2 describes the purpose of applicability 
  >>> statements as
  >>> follows:
  >>> 3.2  Applicability Statement (AS)
  >>>
  >>>    An Applicability Statement specifies how, and under what
  >>>    circumstances, one or more TSs may be applied to 
  >support a particular
  >>>    Internet capability.  An AS may specify uses for TSs 
  >that are not
  >>>    Internet Standards, as discussed in Section 7.
  >>>
  >>>    An AS identifies the relevant TSs and the specific way 
  >in which they
  >>>    are to be combined, and may also specify particular 
  >values or ranges
  >>>    of TS parameters or subfunctions of a TS protocol that must be
  >>>    implemented.  An AS also specifies the circumstances 
  >in which the use
  >>>    of a particular TS is required, recommended, or 
  >elective (see section
  >>>    3.3).
  >> 
  >> 
  >> --
  >> 
  >> Randall Gellens
  >> Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak 
  >for myself only
  >> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- 
  >Television is 
  >> simply automated day-dreaming.
  >>       --Lee Lovinger, _Quote_, July 30, 1967
  >_______________________________________________
  >Ecrit mailing list
  >Ecrit at ietf.org
  >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
  >