Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-11: multiple entities adding data

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

I don't think this is sufficient.  I think there has to be a way to know which data provider which block.

What you have is:
SP A provided some info
SP B provided some info
Info X, don't know who provided it
Info Y, don't know who provided it

Brian

On Oct 22, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Christer, Brian, James,
> 
> I believe you guys raised a couple of issues, namely:
> 
> * Could we provide more and better examples? We have a number of examples in the document but we do not illustrate more complex versions.
> 
> I am thinking about how to add a longer example.
> 
> * Did we double-check whether there are any constraints regarding the number of blocks a single data provider can add and whether there are problems when multiple data provider add information?
> 
> My suggestion is obvious: we have to double-check whether we introduced a bug.
> 
> * Do we always have information about the source of the data provider? Brian claimed that we have lost that feature over time. I double-checked it and there is indeed some fuzziness in the text. Here is the relevant part:
> 
> ------
> 
> 3.1.  Data Provider Information
> 
>   This block is intended to be provided by any service provider in the
>   path of the call or the access network provider.  It includes
>   identification and contact information.  This block SHOULD be
>   provided by every service provider in the call path, and by the
>   access network provider.  Devices MAY use this block to provide
>   identifying information.  The MIME subtype is "application/
>   emergencyCall.ProviderInfo+xml".  An access network provider SHOULD
>   provide this block either by value or by reference in the Provided-By
>   section of a PIDF-LO
> 
> ------
> 
> I believe I hear Brian saying that he wants to have the data provider block be added whenever data is added. I suggest the following modification:
> 
> ------
> 
> 3.1.  Data Provider Information
> 
> This block MUST be provided by
> * any service provider in the path of the call,
> * the access network provider, and
> * the device,
> if these entities act as a source for additional data.  The data provider information block offers identification and contact information of the data source
> 
> The MIME subtype is "application/emergencyCall.ProviderInfo+xml".
> 
> ------
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> 
> On 08/07/2013 02:52 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:
>> There is a requirement for multiple entities to add information.  I
>> don't think there needs to be a requirement that it happen by value, but
>> its at least desirable.
>> 
>> James, it's perfectly clear that some blocks need to be repeated  For
>> example the block that says who provided the data.  Others are more
>> specialized.  So generically, it's a requirement that at least some
>> blocks are supplied by multiple enties.
>> 
>> Brian
>> 
>> On Wednesday, August 7, 2013, James Winterbottom wrote:
>> 
>>    Actually, I think that the requirement is more whether a single
>>    entity should be able to add multiple types if information.
>> 
>>    Cheers
>>    James
>> 
>>    Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>    On 07/08/2013, at 4:32 PM, Christer Holmberg
>>    <[e-mail] <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> 
>>     > Hi Brian,
>>     >
>>     >> Not sure pictures in ascii art would help, but more words might.
>>     >
>>     > I think some ascii art, showing the calling device (user or
>>    sensor), some intermediary ("server") and the PSAP would help.
>>     >
>>     >> My usual example is a medical sensor based device adds some, a
>>    specialized service provider who services the device adds some and a
>>    communications service provider adds some.  all of thise go in the
>>    SIP message.  then the access network sends some in the PIDF.
>>     >>
>>     >> With respect to multiple entities adding data, proxies can't add
>>    bodies, but B2BUAs can.
>>     >
>>     > Well, that is protocol/solution talk - the question is whether
>>    there is a REQUIREMENT that multiple entities should be able to add
>>    information :)
>>     >
>>     > (If so, we then have to either mandate B2BUA functionality, or
>>    use some other mechanism. For example, data that can be defined as
>>    capabilities could be indicated also using feature capability
>>    indicators.)
>>     >
>>     > Regards,
>>     >
>>     > Christer
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > However, you have pointed out a problem that arose in the
>>    evolution of the mechanism.  Originally, there was an outer envelope
>>    wit the blocks inside it.  That would let us know the source of each
>>    block because the data provider block is required.   The current
>>    mechanism doesn't have that.  It's a problem.
>>     >
>>     > Brian
>>     >
>>     > On Tuesday, August 6, 2013, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>     > Hi,
>>     >
>>     > The draft talks about all kind of different entities that might
>>    add additional data to an emergency call.
>>     >
>>     > First, I think it would be good to have some pictures showing a
>>    few different scenarios.
>>     >
>>     > Second, the draft doesn't seem to describe the case where
>>    multiple entities are adding data - for the same call. Will multiple
>>    MIMEs etc be used, are there restrictions, etc etc etc? OR, is it
>>    not allowed to begin with?
>>     >
>>     > Regards,
>>     >
>>     > Christer
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > Sent from Windows using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com
>>    <http://www.nitrodesk.com>)
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > Ecrit mailing list
>>     > [e-mail] <javascript:;>
>>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecrit mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>> 
>