Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT
"Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Fri, 13 August 2010 20:31 UTC
Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
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 6D2413A68C2 for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.625
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.625 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.972, BAD_CREDIT=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 szrzkPZU5BZf for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s31.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s31.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.106]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C80D3A69B1 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU137-DS9 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s31.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:29:11 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.85]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU137-DS9B2B88F43956687354EEF93980@phx.gbl>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: "'Richard L. Barnes'" <rbarnes@bbn.com>, "'Kroeselberg, Dirk (NSN - DE/Munich)'" <dirk.kroeselberg@nsn.com>
References: <C87D8FB6.2760A%mlinsner@cisco.com> <BLU137-W933692C5ED6EC042DF1F893AE0@phx.gbl> <8C51C7A529FC9D49843ACF5AE2FFBF6702D1061B@DEMUEXC030.nsn-intra.net> <BLU0-SMTP41196C4E8945CEC5EA65DF93AE0@phx.gbl> <8C51C7A529FC9D49843ACF5AE2FFBF6702D4C617@DEMUEXC030.nsn-intra.net> <ECD74775-D3F7-440B-8F50-491853F08D06@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <ECD74775-D3F7-440B-8F50-491853F08D06@bbn.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:29:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B4_01CB3AEB.832C3870"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQEJ47uoLAj2qY3CYsMufR5JD7r4MQC0swZMAhLr/S4DVMlSLwLn1cc7Ak5dDTKUB+4NcA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Aug 2010 20:29:11.0385 (UTC) FILETIME=[30364490:01CB3B26]
Cc: ecrit@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:31:19 -0000
I was considering a scenario where a Femtocell provides access to an existing carrier network inside the building, where signals might not otherwise propagate. So if a visitor had a cellular handset that could make an emergency call, they could use that, regardless of whether they could obtain access to an alternative network or not. Presumably the regulators have already decided what the requirements for emergency service are for the cellular network (e.g. no SIM, SIM but ok if no credit, etc.), and the handset meets those requirements. The end result is that the building occupant satisfies the regulatory requirement for "unauthenticated" emergency access without having to modify their own network or VOIP deployment From: Richard L. Barnes [mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:51 PM To: Kroeselberg, Dirk (NSN - DE/Munich) Cc: ext Bernard Aboba; ecrit@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT Yeah, I'm as confused as Dirk here. The IP network behind the femtocell would still have to have a way to provide unauthenticated emergency calling, just like any other IP network. (I don't think it's possible to punt this to IMS emergency calling, since that only covers the case where the VoIP service being used is offered by the femtocell/IP-access provider.) On Aug 6, 2010, at 4:39 AM, Kroeselberg, Dirk (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote: Are you saying the issue of how to get into a hotspot for emergency without credentials will go away because there will be Femtocells around anyway? Not sure this will be the general case soon. However, there are also issues that apply to Femto access (not subscribed/prepaid empty/CSG configurations etc). The idea is not to limit considerations to one specific radio technology like WiFi. Dirk From: ext Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11:20 PM To: Kroeselberg, Dirk (NSN - DE/Munich) Cc: <mlinsner@cisco.com>; <ecrit@ietf.org> Subject: 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 _______________________________________________ Ecrit mailing list Ecrit@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
- [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT Marc Linsner
- Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT Kroeselberg, Dirk (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT James M. Polk
- Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT Dawson, Martin
- Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT Ray Bellis
- Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT Dawson, Martin
- Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT Kroeselberg, Dirk (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [Ecrit] New work in ECRIT Bernard Aboba