Re: [rtcweb] Playing regulator

Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> Sat, 02 February 2013 00:14 UTC

Return-Path: <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDA921E808B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:14:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.420, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w9sMxS2g-MzP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:14:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vsp-authed-01-02.binero.net (vsp-authed02.binero.net [195.74.38.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 675DF21E805A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:14:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp01.binero.se (unknown [195.74.38.28]) by vsp-authed-01-02.binero.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTP for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 01:13:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.2.42] (h79n2fls31o933.telia.com [212.181.137.79]) (Authenticated sender: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se) by smtp-05-01.atm.binero.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7CDC83A164 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 01:13:52 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <510C5A40.6040600@omnitor.se>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:13:52 +0100
From: Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <50F97303.4070906@ericsson.com> <5102FE7E.5000109@omnitor.se> <51039976.1000600@alvestrand.no> <51098D5A.4040009@omnitor.se> <510AF934.2030800@alvestrand.no> <201302012243.r11MhmTi1016963@shell01.TheWorld.com> <BLU405-EAS21443326CB0B10EFDC7E529931C0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU405-EAS21443326CB0B10EFDC7E529931C0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000507090300040801030901"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Playing regulator
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 00:14:32 -0000

It is easy to imagine applications of WebRTC where the users will not 
have any expectation that they could use it for emergency services.
E.g. a web page only providing access to a specific company's customer 
service.
So, each application does not need to provide this access.

However, the platform has apparent ambitions to be possible to use for 
telephony like applications, with an opportunity to call by address or 
number,
E.g
4.3.1 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-10#section-4.3.1>. 
Telephony terminal

In at least that case, there will be an expectation from users, and a 
requirement from regulators in many countries to be able to provide 
emergency service access.

So, the topic belongs here in some way.

I withdrew it from the total conversation addition, because it is a 
general function. I hope it will be possible to find a suitable place 
and general wording for it, and there indicate that it is valid for all 
media, including audio, video and real-time text.

Gunnar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
+46708204288
On 2013-02-02 00:28, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> With regulations in flux, it is not easy to predict the extent of the 
> obligation, beyond what exists for an "interconnected VoIP" service 
> today.  For example, we have a text to 911 proceeding ongoing as well 
> as quite a few others. In order to examine what the Issues might be, 
> Martin and I put together the following document:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-rtcweb-ecrit
>
> Comments welcome.
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:44, "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com 
> <mailto:worley@ariadne.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Can you explain this?  I suspect that you have a specific meaning, but
>> as I read it, it sounds like "I see no objection if WebRTC does not
>> interwork with emergency services."  If WebRTC does not interwork with
>> emergency services, the regulators will crush it.
>>
>> Dale
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb