Re: [Ecrit] PLEASE RESPOND: Should the WG adopt draft-rosen-ecrit-emergency-registries-01?

The use case that motivated the original effort was Video Relay Service, where a deaf or hard of hearing person signals a need for, say American Sign Language video in an emergency call, and the PSAP that gets the call signals audio- English.  That would prompt the PSAP to add a sign language interpreter and create a three way audio+video emergency call.

But exactly the same idea works if the caller signals French audio and the PSAP signals English Audio.

Apparently, that’s not what you need.

Brian

> On Aug 30, 2022, at 2:58 PM, James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank Brian,
> 
> I think we can do something in ETSI. 
> I don’t think that RFC 8373 does what I need as it focuses on language in the SDP which isn’t going to suit my need as I won’t have SDP at that point and may not at all in some cases.
> 
> These tags have use way beyond SIP and protocol methods, which is why I was asking.
> 
> Cheers
> James
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30 Aug 2022, at 11:01 pm, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> wrote:
>> 
>> James
>> 
>> These are all registries.  There is no protocol mechanisms defined.  The protocols are defined in NENA and ETSI/EENA documents.  Everyone wanted a common set of registries, and in fact committed to eventually reaching a common single world-wide standard, although it’s not a current work effort.  So any new service requires text in NENA and/or ETSI/EENA documents.  You are welcome to propose such text.
>> 
>> Depending on what you mean by “translation service”, there is provision in NENA documents for automatically adding a third party interpreter to an emergency call.  We haven’t broadened it to a third party language translation service yet, but it’s straightforward.  The key is the RFC8373 language negotiation mechanism.
>> 
>> Brian
>> 
>>> On Aug 29, 2022, at 6:39 PM, James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I like the concept, though I would like to see a translation service added at the same level as the responder as part of the document as increasingly there is a need to link in these services and, at least in Europe, these maybe third-party services that are regionalised depending on the type of service being asked for.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> James
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 30 Aug 2022, at 1:10 am, Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Members of ECRIT,
>>>> 
>>>> Please respond to the question: Should the ECRIT WG adopt draft-rosen-ecrit-emergency-registries-01 as a WG document?
>>>> 
>>>> Please do not ignore this message; the chairs need to see positive support for adoption. You can respond with "yes" or "no" or something else (e.g., "yes with the following changes...."), but PLEASE RESPOND.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> 
>>>> --Randall
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> 
> 