Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs
"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Mon, 05 January 2009 19:40 UTC
Return-Path: <ecrit-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ecrit-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ecrit-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F653A69E0; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:40:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ecrit@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD553A6925 for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:40:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2URyrsA1bZQY for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:40:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2CF3A68E1 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:40:21 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,333,1228089600"; d="scan'208";a="58266487"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Jan 2009 19:20:19 +0000
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n05JKIma017745; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:20:18 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n05JKIQn022147; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:20:18 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:20:17 -0800
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com ([10.89.17.209]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:20:16 -0800
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:20:15 -0600
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>, 'Hannes Tschofenig' <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, "'Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)'" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>, 'ECRIT' <ecrit@ietf.org>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <28B7C3AA2A7ABA4A841F11217ABE78D67481999F@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc -m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <C41BFCED3C088E40A8510B57B165C162F0AC2A@FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net> <XFE-SJC-212ZWZaendg00006f16@xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com> <007501c96dd1$1b5ecd40$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> <041801c96f4c$e63c29f0$b2b47dd0$@net> <28B7C3AA2A7ABA4A841F11217ABE78D67481999F@FRMRSSXCHMBSB3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <XFE-SJC-21211HZv7FD000072df@xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jan 2009 19:20:16.0883 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4339430:01C96F6A]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=7030; t=1231183219; x=1232047219; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22James=20M.=20Polk=22=20<jmpolk@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Ecrit]=20PSAP=20Call=20Backs |Sender:=20; bh=D2mrdsDt72+d/geuLxqtrLDsGfHtgVRerMKqE0gB83s=; b=NqXVWOeAzFhZRuoWsTxWEuEcR3uR7eL2ggQVrR032jnBMnh7TQnNb54B2/ TrlYH4jW6h318on/2M9fEnCJXslOUxBCpMFvbVuffpUUpwAeQHTdbEcCA3fT lc57SeF27F3NbST5/freyC5gaB9JN+3vOWEtdaxe0NboL7vDmFJX8=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=jmpolk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/ecrit>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org
At 01:07 PM 1/5/2009, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: >I think I agree with what Brian is saying here, but I would turn the >statement round. > >We should decide what special behaviours callback calls required, >and then identify the appropriate means of signalling to generate >that behaviour. > >That means if we identify that callback calls need special treatment >in the network, then RPH may be the way to do it. If we want to >override incoming call bahaviour in the destination UA, then we find >an appropriate way of doing that (along with a security solution to >prevent misuse. > >I though we had decided to deal with callback issues with a separate >requirements draft. As such I would support taking out callback text >from all documents at the moment, not with the idea that that might >not be the solution, but that we come up with a complete package of >solutions in the future. I think this is appropriate >regards > >Keith > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] > > On Behalf Of Brian Rosen > > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 3:47 PM > > To: 'Hannes Tschofenig'; 'James M. Polk'; 'Tschofenig, Hannes > > (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; 'ECRIT' > > Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs > > > > I would have said that we decide if callbacks should have > > special treatment of any kind. > > > > If we decide that they should, then we decide how we will > > mark them, and then what the behavior is for that marking. > > > > Please do not confuse the resource priority marking and > > behavior with this discussion. As with the emergency call > > marking (urn:service:sos in Route), and the associated > > behaviors in PhoneBCP, the RPH is an independent marking and > > behavior specification. If we mark call backs, it won't be > > with RPH. A callback MAY also have an RPH marking, and there > > could be behavior associated with that with respect to > > priority handling within a network. > > Similarly, the packets of a callback could have a DiffServ > > marking, and behavior associates with that marking within a network. > > > > I think we should have a call back marking, and we should > > specify behaviors for that marking. > > > > Brian > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] > > On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig > > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 1:29 PM > > To: 'James M. Polk'; Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); 'ECRIT' > > Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs > > > > There are two different aspects: > > > > A) A decision that decides whether a call back has to be marked or not > > > > B) When the decision is made that is has to be marked then > > how the marking is going to look like. > > > > Regarding (A): This might be a policy issues. Some PSAPs > > might want to use this indication and others might not. > > Nothing we have to worry about. > > > > Regarding (B): Here there needs to be one way todo the > > marking -- not multiple ways. It would just increase the > > implementation complexity, the number of error cases and > > interop problems. > > > > I am not sure to what your "MAY" statement refers to -- to > > (A) or (B). > > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] > > On Behalf > > >Of James M. Polk > > >Sent: 02 January, 2009 22:15 > > >To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); ECRIT > > >Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs > > > > > >At 04:21 AM 12/31/2008, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > > >>Hi all, > > >> > > >>In the last few months we have seen increased interest in the > > >topic of > > >>PSAP call backs. > > >> > > >>Section 10 of > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-06 > > >>says: > > >> > > >> SP-36 Call backs to the Contact: header URI recieved within 30 > > >> minutes of an emergency call must reach the device > > >regardless of call > > >> features or services that would normally cause the call > > >to be routed > > >> to some other entity. > > >> > > >>More importantly, Section 13 says: > > >> > > >> ED-73 Call backs SHOULD be determined by retaining the > > >domain of the > > >> PSAP which answers an outgoing emergency call and > > instantiating a > > >> timer which starts when the call is terminated. If a call is > > >> received from the same domain and within the timer > > period, sent to > > >> the Contact: or AoR used in the emergency call, it should > > >be assumed > > >> to be a call back. The suggested timer period is 5 minutes. > > >> > > >>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-patel-ecrit-sos-parameter-01.txt > > >>proposed another solution based on marking the callback using > > >the "sos" > > >>URI parameter. > > >> > > >>http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergenc > > >y-rph-nam > > >>e space/ proposes another solution by utilizing the > > Resource Priority > > >>Header. > > > > > >within the namespace ID, the total thought (for PSAP > > callback) is here: > > > > > > This namespace will also be used > > > for communications between emergency authorities, and MAY be used > > > for emergency authorities calling public citizens. An example of > > > the later is a PSAP operator calling back someone who previously > > > called 9111/112/999 and the communication was terminated before it > > > should have been (in the operator's judgment). > > > > > >Notice this is all based on the MAY in the first sentence, > > therefore it > > >can be considered an afterthought, i.e., something that can be > > >utilized/specified later. > > > > > >the "sos" parameter solution is more definitive, yet it > > should identify > > >a priority marking (in SIP), given that there is already a > > defined way > > >to do that in SIP, and a second way shouldn't be defined > > >- as it will only lead to interoperability issues. > > > > > > > > >>So, here are my high-level questions: > > >> > > >>A) Do you think that you understand the requirements that lead to a > > >>need for a technical solution? > > >> > > >>B) Do you believe that more work beyond the mechanism described in > > >>Phone BCP is needed? > > >> > > >>Ciao > > >>Hannes > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>Ecrit mailing list > > >>Ecrit@ietf.org > > >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Ecrit mailing list > > >Ecrit@ietf.org > > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ecrit mailing list > > Ecrit@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ecrit mailing list > > Ecrit@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit > > _______________________________________________ Ecrit mailing list Ecrit@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
- [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs James M. Polk
- Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs James M. Polk
- Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs James M. Polk
- Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs James M. Polk
- Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs James M. Polk
- Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs Milan Patel