Re: [Ecrit] PLEASE RESPOND: Should the WG adopt draft-rosen-ecrit-emergency-registries-01?

James

These are all registries.  There is no protocol mechanisms defined.  The protocols are defined in NENA and ETSI/EENA documents.  Everyone wanted a common set of registries, and in fact committed to eventually reaching a common single world-wide standard, although it’s not a current work effort.  So any new service requires text in NENA and/or ETSI/EENA documents.  You are welcome to propose such text.

Depending on what you mean by “translation service”, there is provision in NENA documents for automatically adding a third party interpreter to an emergency call.  We haven’t broadened it to a third party language translation service yet, but it’s straightforward.  The key is the RFC8373 language negotiation mechanism.

Brian

> On Aug 29, 2022, at 6:39 PM, James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I like the concept, though I would like to see a translation service added at the same level as the responder as part of the document as increasingly there is a need to link in these services and, at least in Europe, these maybe third-party services that are regionalised depending on the type of service being asked for.
> 
> Cheers
> James
> 
> 
>> On 30 Aug 2022, at 1:10 am, Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Members of ECRIT,
>> 
>> Please respond to the question: Should the ECRIT WG adopt draft-rosen-ecrit-emergency-registries-01 as a WG document?
>> 
>> Please do not ignore this message; the chairs need to see positive support for adoption. You can respond with "yes" or "no" or something else (e.g., "yes with the following changes...."), but PLEASE RESPOND.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> --Randall
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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