Re: [Ecrit] New Work

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi James,

and sorry to corner you to a 3GPP-friendly situation ;-)

In psap-callback (and sos-parameter) 3GPP needs an indication of callback (and special registration) to trigger specific processing of the request.

3GPP would prefer to use generic IETF based mechanisms for such indications, as is already shown by us postponing the question to wait for IETF solution, even at the cost of leaving this critical part out of Rel-9 which is the first release expected to contain a full emergency call support.

Regulatory emergency call requirements and EPC/LTE deployments make the protocol solution for callback and emergency registration more urgent than they used to be in specification drafting phase.

Thanks Martin for volunteering to work on callback!

BR,
Hannu Hietalahti
3GPP TSG CT Chairman
tel: [phone]
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>On Behalf Of ext James M. Polk
>Sent: 18 August, 2010 03:29
>To: Bernard Aboba; 'James M. Polk'; 'Marc Linsner'; 'ecrit'
>Subject: Re: [Ecrit] New Work
>
>fair
>
>but Hannu was most likely correct that if this takes as long as till 
>spring `12, then it'll miss an entire window into 3GPP for 
>deployment, which is (at least one of) the largest group(s) wanting 
>this spec`d in the IETF, right?
>
>I'm not always a fan of 3GPP, but their requirements should (i.e., 
>can) be a goal for us here, right?
>
>James
>
>At 07:21 PM 8/17/2010, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>Getting PSAP callback "done" on schedule won't  matter much 
>if the resulting
>>solution isn't implemented and deployed.   So I wouldn't 
>worry as much about
>>IETF schedules as much as much as deployability.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>On Behalf Of
>>James M. Polk
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 4:53 PM
>>To: Marc Linsner; 'ecrit'
>>Subject: Re: [Ecrit] New Work
>>
>>I will commit to work on the data-only ID, and possibly psap-callback.
>>
>>I think I share Hannu's concerns about psap-callback taking 
>so long to get
>>done. I mean, in 6 months this WG will have only 3 docs to 
>work on, surely
>>we can get this one done sooner if we try.
>>
>>Otherwise, the proposed milestones appear fine to me.
>>
>>James
>>
>>At 09:08 AM 8/13/2010, Marc Linsner wrote:
>> >We recently asked for any objections to taking on the following
>> >documents as workgroup items.  We have consensus to take 
>this work on,
>> >now we have to commit to a realistic timeframe for 
>completion.  We're
>> >suggesting the following and would like your comments to include:
>> >
>> >1) Are willing to work/contribute on the document?
>> >2) Are willing to commit to the timeframe shown?
>> >
>> >The chairs commit to hosting virtual interim meetings at intervals
>> >necessary to meet the timeframes.
>> >
>> >Mar 2011 - draft-rosen-ecrit-additional-data Apr 2011 -
>> >draft-rosen-ecrit-data-only-ea Dec 2011 -
>> >draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-unauthenticated-access
>> >Jan 2012 - draft-tschofenig-ecrit-trustworthy-location
>> >Mar 2012 - draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-psap-callback
>> >
>> >We realize the timeframes appear to out there but past 
>experience tells
>> >us to be conservative.  There's no penalty for getting them 
>done early.
>> >
>> >We MUST have commitment to work on these before the ADs will give us
>> >the milestones.
>> >
>> >Please send your comments including which drafts you are willing to
>> >work on by COB Friday, August 20, 2010.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>> >-Marc, Richard, Roger-
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >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
>