Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering
"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Tue, 14 October 2008 18:26 UTC
Return-Path: <ecrit-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ecrit-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ecrit-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C303A6874; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ecrit@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D643A6874 for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ta9H87uAbzVZ for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D633A6862 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,410,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="95103956"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2008 18:26:40 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m9EIQeI0011196; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:26:40 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9EIQeXX014007; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:26:40 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:26:39 -0700
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com ([10.21.91.34]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:26:39 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:26:57 -0500
To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>, ECRIT <ecrit@ietf.org>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C41BFCED3C088E40A8510B57B165C162943512@FIESEXC007.nsn-intr a.net>
References: <C41BFCED3C088E40A8510B57B165C162943512@FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <XFE-SJC-212jCRGryWt0000103b@xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2008 18:26:39.0249 (UTC) FILETIME=[660E5810:01C92E2A]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5191; t=1224008800; x=1224872800; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22James=20M.=20Polk=22=20<jmpolk@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Ecrit]=20ECRIT=20WG=20Rechartering |Sender:=20; bh=gGeY/5/p2USDDDHI4KX3tvegXYOuruDuVCdELQASRNM=; b=rvKQukXlc2jjCZQiVsZg9tTliCLQklxe0nKdNJn/jUldMq7S/+wk1VrFMQ sVmO0GVT4rXVCbgCuMFd8cPnO7uEfEk6qF23LbFnM0LuUWP1w7EA92jyyJU2 +lpzFXYS0k;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=jmpolk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/ecrit>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org
At 01:13 AM 10/14/2008, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: >Here is a first proposal for the ECRIT WG rechartering based on the >discussions we had around IETF#72. >For the moment, I have put 3 additional documents onto the charter: >http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-polk-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace- >03.txt I'll have a new version before the -00 deadline. Can either of you chairs submit to the Secretariat that draft-ietf-ecrit-local-emergency-rph-namespace-00 is coming and approved by the chairs (so we don't end up with a timing issue)? Thanks James >http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-ecrit-rough-loc-00.txt >http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-forte-ecrit-lost-extensions-00.txt > >Regarding the following two documents >http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-forte-ecrit-service-classification-00.txt >http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sun-ecrit-shelter-service-00.txt >I am waiting for additional feedback from the draft authors on how they >perceive these documents should be progressed through the IETF, see my >mail here: >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg05518.html > >Please take a look at it and give me feedback till the 21st October >2008. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >--------------------------- > >Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies (ecrit) > >Description of Working Group: > >In a number of areas, the public switched telephone network (PSTN) has >been configured to recognize an explicitly specified number (commonly >one that is short and easily memorized) as a call for emergency >services. These numbers (e.g. 911, 112) relate to an emergency >service context and depend on a broad, regional configuration of >service contact methods and a geographically-constrained context of >service delivery. These calls are intended to be delivered to special >call centers equipped to manage emergency response. Successful >delivery of an emergency service call within those systems requires >both an association of the physical location of the originator with an >appropriate emergency service center and call routing to deliver the >call to the center. > >Calls placed using Internet technologies do not use the same systems >to achieve those goals, and the common use of overlay networks and >tunnels (either as VPNs or for mobility) makes meeting them more >challenging. There are, however, Internet technologies available to >describe location and to manage call routing. This working group will >describe when these may be appropriate and how they may be used. This >group is considering emergency services calls which might be made by >any user of the Internet, as opposed to government or military >services that may impose very different authentication and routing >requirements. > >While this group anticipates a close working relationship with groups >such as NENA and ETSI EMTEL, any solution presented must be useful >regardless of jurisdiction, and it must be possible to use without a >single, central authority. Further, it must be possible for multiple >delegations within a jurisdiction to be handled independently, as call >routing for specific emergency types may be independent. > >The group will work on the maintainance of the >Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol, on (emergency services >and non-emergency services related)extensions to LoST to the as well as >on necessary extension related to emergency call routing. > >This working group cares about privacy and security concerns, and will >address them within its documents. > >Goals and Milestones: > >Done An Informational RFC containing terminology definitions >and the requirements >Done An Informational document describing the threats and >security considerations >Done A Standards Track RFC describing how to identify a >session set-up request is to an emergency response center >Done A Standards Track RFC describing how to route an >emergency call based on location information >Done An Informational document describing the Mapping >Protocol Architecture >Dec 2008 An Informational document describing the ECRIT Framework >Dec 2008 A BCP document describing the emergency call support for >devices >Oct 2008 An Informational document providing a problem statement >and requirements for location hiding >Oct 2008 An Informational document specifying how to express >holes in LoST service boundaries >Dec 2008 An Informational document describing how to synchronize >LoST servers >Jan 2009 A Standards Track RFC registering a SIP Resource >Priority Header Namespace for Local Emergency Communications >Feb 2009 An Informational document describing how imprecise >location is used for emergency context resolution >Feb 2009 A Standards Track RFC containing Location-to-Service >Translation Protocol (LoST) Extensions >_______________________________________________ >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
- [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering James M. Polk
- Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering Richard Barnes
- Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering James M. Polk
- Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering James M. Polk
- Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)