Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT

With femtocells, emergency calls (including non-service initialized  
ones) can be made indoors, without the handset having to obtain access  
to a corporate or hotspot network.  As a result, a company could  
forego the challenge, expense and liability associated with  
engineering unauthenticated emergency calling for non-employees.

On Aug 3, 2010, at 12:12 PM, "Kroeselberg, Dirk (NSN - DE/Munich)" <dirk.kroeselberg@nsn.com 
 > wrote:

> Bernard,
>
>
>
> could you clarify your comment regarding the relation of femtocells  
> to the unauthenticated draft? It is correct that some femtocell  
> configurations are considered an issue for emergency access, but I  
> am not sure which relation to unauthenticated you are pointing at.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dirk
>
>
>
> From: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] On  
> Behalf Of ext Bernard Aboba
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 7:26 PM
> To: mlinsner@cisco.com; ecrit@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT
>
>
>
> My humble suggestion is that draft-rosen-ecrit-additional-data is  
> both straightforward and highly beneficial.  While IETF tradition  
> would suggest that items with such a high benefit/cost ratio should  
> be delayed indefinitely or abandoned in favor of items that are more  
> intractable,  I'd suggest a concession to common sense in this  
> isolated instance.
>
> Of course, in order to ensure that the WG does not debase itself in  
> an orgy of productivity, tradition requires that the WG take on a  
> number of work items which are "hard" only because the wrong  
> questions are being asked.   I'd assert that both Unauthenticated  
> Access and PSAP callback  fall in this category.
>
> Unauthenticated Access is "hard" because it represents a solution  
> without a real problem.  There is no regulatory requirement for this  
> today, nor is there likely to be one in the near future because the  
> "solution" would itself be a problem and because technology such as  
> femtocells will make the "problem" disappear in due course.
>
> PSAP Callback is "hard" largely because of the disconnect between  
> the PSTN way of thinking and the reality of VOIP, which will result  
> in extended (and largely fruitless) "discussions", until the passage  
> of the leaves the obvious solution in plain view, like a whale  
> washed up on the beach.  Serializing other work items until this  
> "hard" problem is "solved" will essentially cause them to wait in  
> the queue until our teeth are but a memory.
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:19:50 -0400
> > From: mlinsner@cisco.com
> > To: ecrit@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT
> >
> > During the meeting last week the following drafts were discussed  
> in the
> > context of accepting them as WG items.
> >
> > draft-rosen-ecrit-additional-data
> > draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-psap-callback
> > draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-unauthenticated-access
> > draft-tschofenig-ecrit-trustworthy-location
> > draft-rosen-ecrit-data-only-ea
> >
> > The chairs and ADs have reviewed the level of interest in these,  
> compared
> > the work to the current charter and believe these fit within the  
> scope of
> > ECRIT.
> >
> > We asked during the meeting if anyone objects to accepting any or  
> all of
> > these drafts as WG items. So, now, we're asking on the list.
> >
> > If you object to any of these drafts becoming WG items, please  
> explain if
> > you think the work is something ECRIT should not do, or if you  
> simply have
> > problems with current version of the particular draft. No response  
> is a
> > show of support for all of this work.
> >
> > Once the above question is answered, the chairs will devise a work  
> plan to
> > finish the accepted work.
> >
> > Also discussed in the meeting was the priority order of getting  
> these drafts
> > completed, and it was the general feeling that psap-callback,
> > unauthenticated-access, and trustworthy-location were the most  
> difficult and
> > would take more time. Of those three the general feeling was the
> > psap-callback was the highest priority. If you have an opinion on  
> which
> > draft should completed first, please send it to the list.
> >
> > Please respond by COB on Wednesday, 8/11/2010 if you have  
> objections to any
> > of this work, or you have strong feelings on the priority of the  
> work.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Marc, Richard, Roger-
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ecrit mailing list
> > Ecrit@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit