[Geopriv] Comments on draft-winterbottom-ecrit-direct

[Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>]

Is this an alternative to doing phone-bcp or does it require the UA  
also do phone-bcp?

It seems like the point of the REGISTER is to get a GRU, why does the  
register need to deal with any location information?

 Why not just do location by value in the INVITE?

Why would the Emergency service run the registrar? If you believe this  
is going to be legislated into existence, it seems far more likely the  
network operator would be forced to do it. If you don't believe it  
will be legislated into existence, I don't see why anyone would do it.

The user interface contemplated in section 5 sounds absolutely  
horrendous. I can imagine the blind user having a heart attack  
listening to the IVR from hell. Press 1 if your emergency involves  
animal control, press 2 if you are having a fire, press 3 if you need  
mountain rescue, press 4 if you are contemplating suicide by this  
point in the IVR and so on.

It's unclear to me if you expect this register to happen for devices  
that have a GRUU (perhaps though normal home registration). The idea  
that we have a huge code path that is only ever used when you make an  
emergency call seems like a plan we have done our best to avoid in the  
past.

Lets talk about outbound some time - I think the text here might be a  
bit confused.

Strongly disagree with the idea that the INVITE has to have SDP. This  
makes it impossible to have call coming in from some voip systems  
including ones that might be a gateway from say H.323.

I don't see why caller preferences are a SHOULD? At a minimum you need  
to say what caller preferences are a SHOULD.


Cullen <in my individual contributor role>