Re: [Ecrit] PSAP Call Backs

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

At 08:15 AM 1/3/2009, Brian Rosen wrote:
>As with incoming calls, some minimum standards are needed on the signaling.
>
>I also want to point out that resource priority marking is NOT a good choice
>for an overall callback mark,

I'd like to second this view, and offer that callback marking text be 
removed from
draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace.

Comments?

James

>the same way that the Route header sos urn is
>not a good choice for a resource priority mark.
>
>Brian
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>James M. Polk
>Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 3:15 PM
>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-emergency-rph-name
> >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
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit