Re: [Ecrit] Request URI in Phone BCP

Have you look at this document? 
draft-polk-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01.txt

Richard Barnes wrote:
> Maybe I'm being simplistic, but why are we conflating emergency 
> indication with routing?  I realize that there's a need for emergency 
> call marking, but it seems abusive to use the Route header for that.  
> I think we need to find a header with a more appropriate semantic 
> (even To seems better, since that's the logical destination).  If 
> there's not a header available that's has appropriate semantics and 
> isn't modifiable, then we should define a new header field for 
> emergency indication that MUST NOT be modified by any entity other 
> than the UAC.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
> Brian Rosen wrote:
>> I don't think that is right, and I think the loose route draft is 
>> correct.
>> If you put the PSAP URI in the Request URI then you don't know it's an
>> emergency call, and you don't know what service was requested.  The 
>> service
>> URN is the marker that the call is an emergency call.
>>
>> If you put the service URN in the Request URI, and the PSAP URI in a 
>> Route
>> header, then the call will be routed to the PSAP correctly, and the 
>> Request
>> URI will remain as the service URN.
>>
>> You can't depend on To:, although if the UA recognizes the dial 
>> string, then
>> the To: would also have the service URN.  If it did not detect the
>> dialstring, the To: would have the dial string.
>>
>> If the UA did not do the LoST dip, then there would not be a Route 
>> header.
>> This allows the first hop proxy to determine what it needs to do.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]
>>> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 3:58 PM
>>> To: ECRIT
>>> Subject: [Ecrit] Request URI in Phone BCP
>>>
>>> There is a mistake in the Phone BCP in Section 6.1, bullet (1). Here is
>>> the text:
>>>
>>> "
>>> 1. The Request URI SHOULD be a PSAP URI obtained from LoST (see Section
>>> 6.3). If the device cannot access a LoST server, the To: SHOULD be a
>>> service URN in the "sos" tree.
>>> "
>>>
>>> Instead of talking about the To in the second sentence it should say
>>> Request URI. Here is the changed text:
>>>
>>> "
>>> 1. The Request URI SHOULD be a PSAP URI obtained from LoST (see Section
>>> 6.3). If the device cannot access a LoST server, the Request URI SHOULD
>>> be a service URN in the "sos" tree.
>>> "
>>>
>>> I believe that item (5) should be removed:
>>>
>>> "
>>> 5. A Route header SHOULD be present with the service URN in the "sos"
>>> tree, and the loose route parameter.
>>> "
>>>
>>> The 3GPP IMS emergency service spec, TS  24.229, does not use it 
>>> either.
>>>
>>> Ciao
>>> Hannes
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ecrit mailing list
>>> Ecrit@ietf.org
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecrit mailing list
>> Ecrit@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit