Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Hannes,

Could you say anything about the future of authority-to-citizen emergency 
services work mentioned during the "potential charter" discussion in Dublin?

Thanks,

Spencer


> 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
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> 


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit