IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-11: Question on scope of the Contact URI, defined in section 3.1.5

Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> Fri, 09 August 2013 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <br@brianrosen.net>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7AD321F9FE3 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 05:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.268
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.292, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1BJg8FNwrQcI for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 05:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f174.google.com (mail-pd0-f174.google.com [209.85.192.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D52421F9FDE for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 05:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f174.google.com with SMTP id y13so504439pdi.5 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Aug 2013 05:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RIl9GcVus9e7MLjW3xytLWD2NFmK/e8UDcuTOT5Vi5s=; b=pQv/efpT0tFGtfGafHEeK3fVBLLLrFYbPeC+n9EJ1KCccqsegotG33SoQRCy4hV/Fy N81pGcCvVB4WyTr2pHzCoAGhWjshn0mPtaCQ+DSOzrpXqlMwCMsrefkFywYjFsYbEy/Y 6wVNKjuy/1F77Ue3+8p/C5NOnYE65P8FumhqLOF8YJFKdtxq7g4i3ShXd2slvn8Oj+6f CT6sMGijwmH0lr0ryjMqWxR1Xxi3+QKmZvDkrfxKq3SYEN0PCPFedi0AyfKlJ+TENn8+ ALve/tN68S8xi7+4J3XKrLc12g8pXZy62KIMhk3n7hpDxOtTjwsu0Jp+i4Mg83Lpzx7H tTJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkBryMlIXl7nWkUh5OCOd/9ccFNjuMPUhFlVlgcguhHYEmGbRmRtz80DG0XP1uboeE6fQd+
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.227.39 with SMTP id rx7mr11481825pac.44.1376052291932; Fri, 09 Aug 2013 05:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.23.225 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 05:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.112.236.47]
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C422DB7@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C41E812@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C422BC7@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAOPrzE3XQGhXgH_zPpNDeLBrPb4hRUp2JefV2s9TqW1Ku0=RSA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C422DB7@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 08:44:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOPrzE3P_0w7B3v_LpabzG+ooqf38KaPyOiFiTvVoxhcCYmbvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b111f3f0da79c04e383246b"
Cc: "ecrit_ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-11: Question on scope of the Contact URI, defined in section 3.1.5
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 09 Aug 2013 12:44:58 -0000

I'm okay adding that text.

Brian

On Friday, August 9, 2013, Christer Holmberg wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> If the PSAP is not supposed to use the field when/if making a callback, I
> think we shall explicitly state that in the document, and/or in general say
> that the field must not be used for calls that are expected to be given
> priority/special handling, and give callback as an example.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> Sent from *Windows* using *TouchDown* (www.nitrodesk.com)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Brian Rosen [br@brianrosen.net <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'br@brianrosen.net');>]
> *To:* Christer Holmberg [christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'christer.holmberg@ericsson.com');>
> ]
> *CC:* ecrit_ietf.org [ecrit@ietf.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'ecrit@ietf.org');>]
> *Subject:* Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-11: Question on
> scope of the Contact URI, defined in section 3.1.5
> The Contact is how the PSAP contacts the service provider to get help from
> the SP.
>
>  It's not a "call back" in the sense of an emergency call (the network
> doesn't treat it differently than a normal call), at least as far as I have
> considered it.  I suppose it might be nice to know that it's important, but
> I don't think that is worth any big new mechanism.
>
>  Brian
>
>
> On Thursday, August 8, 2013, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
>>  I haven't seen any reply to this. Brian, do you have any opinion?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from *Windows* using *TouchDown* (www.nitrodesk.com)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* Christer Holmberg [christer.holmberg@ericsson.com]
>> *To:* ecrit@ietf.org [ecrit@ietf.org]
>> *Subject:* [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-11: Question on
>> scope of the Contact URI, defined in section 3.1.5
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> A question on the scope of the Contact URI, defined in section 3.1.5 of
>> draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-11.txt.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is the Contact URI supposed by the PSAP when making callbacks?
>>
>>
>>
>> If the value represents a “service provider”, should PSAP callbacks also
>> be made to the service provider?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Christer
>>
>>
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email