Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature Call Termination

No requirement stands on its own. Particularly in this case, proposed  
solutions have had severe side effects that may well outweigh whatever  
call handling functionality is gained. Thus, we need to look at the  
whole picture, not just one requirement. For example, any such  
mechanism must not brick a caller's phone, must not create the ability  
to eavesdrop on users and must not increase security vulnerabilities.  
It may also help to have a less-mechanism-focused requirement. Since  
the user has placed the receiver on hook (on a traditional phone, at  
least), from a user perspective, this is no different than being  
called back, unless you indeed make the phone non-operable.

In the end, the user also has a right to be left alone. If the caller  
no longer wants to talk to the PSAP, forcing him to do that seems  
inappropriate and may well be against the law (or at least should be,  
in a society that calls itself free). We want to prevent accidental  
disconnects, but the PSAP has no right to take over the user's phone,  
listen to the user's environment without permission or perform other  
intrusive acts. Unfortunately, the current requirement document does  
not reflect any of these concerns.

Henning

On Oct 8, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Marc Linsner wrote:

> Brian,
>
> I have no problem entertaining new requirements.  I simply want the
> motivation ("We have to do this because") to be spun correctly.
>
> I also believe this demands a viewpoint from the 'other' party, the  
> PSAP
> customer, Joe Citizen.
>
> If in fact a solution can to designed that fulfills the requirement  
> and
> protects Joe's desires, I have no problem.
>
> -Marc-
>

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit