Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature Call Termination
"Brian Rosen" <br@brianrosen.net> Wed, 08 October 2008 22:12 UTC
Return-Path: <ecrit-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ecrit-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ecrit-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E1B28C18D; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
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 E320628C17D for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.341
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.341 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
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 3Ct46mArKRON for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ebru.winwebhosting.com (ebru.winwebhosting.com [74.55.202.130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D1128C179 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from neustargw.va.neustar.com ([209.173.53.233] helo=BROSVMxp) by ebru.winwebhosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <br@brianrosen.net>) id 1KnhHW-0003en-QO; Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:13:23 -0500
From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
To: 'Ted Hardie' <hardie@qualcomm.com>, "'DRAGE, Keith (Keith)'" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, 'Henning Schulzrinne' <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>, 'Marc Linsner' <mlinsner@cisco.com>
References: <C5122B8B.CD64%mlinsner@cisco.com> <FCBD2756-A298-4593-BEEF-04A47174507F@cs.columbia.edu><p06240600c5128d04a4 32@[10.227.68.106]> <073101c9296f$4ddbd110$e9937330$@net> <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE29180023B06DB@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com> <003f01c92986$5ecbf0b0$1c63d210$@net> <p0624060cc512d1feced4@[10.227.68.106]>
In-Reply-To: <p0624060cc512d1feced4@[10.227.68.106]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:13:25 -0400
Message-ID: <005601c92993$17feb6b0$47fc2410$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ackpjn5t94UDpSNVRr+DCVTYUeiODgAAXtAg
Content-Language: en-us
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ebru.winwebhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - brianrosen.net
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: 'ECRIT' <ecrit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature Call Termination
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org
Ted Lots of systems get used even when they don't meet the user's requirements. That's what happened. I don't mean to imply that the whole thing won't work without this feature. On the other hand, as you know, sometimes implementers ignore requirements for financial or other reasons. I don't think that applies here in ecrit, but it may. I just don't see how you take a situation where carriers flat out refused to meet the requirement as justification for not considering the requirement, or negating its importance. The 9-1-1 system "worked" without any location. When wireless first started, it didn't provide ANY location at all. Are you suggesting that the location reporting requirement be dropped because millions of 9-1-1 calls were completed without it? Then, I think you drop immediately into mechanism issues. You, for example, get worried about some new negotiation phase. No one has suggested that. The proposals that are at the front of the table use the existing Supported/Required option negotiation mechanism. The UA indicates that it can support the option in Supported. The PSAP indicates that it can implement the option, and desires to employ it on the specific call, by including it in Required. If the UA sees it in Required, and it sent it in Supported, it enables the function. If it doesn't understand it, or doesn't see it in Required, it's not enabled. In some folk's preferred implementation, you use the existing Hold signaling (SDP sendrecv=inactive) to indicate "hook state", and rather than sending BYE from the UA. The PSAP terminates the call. The UA can terminate if it doesn't complete the ReINVITE that signals a hook state change. I think that avoids the "brick" problem. There is NO added latency. It doesn't use any resources that weren't already allocated for the call. You do something similar with CANCEL. Brian (who is still listening) -----Original Message----- From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie@qualcomm.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 5:41 PM To: Brian Rosen; 'DRAGE, Keith (Keith)'; 'Henning Schulzrinne'; 'Marc Linsner' Cc: 'ECRIT' Subject: RE: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature Call Termination At 1:42 PM -0700 10/8/08, Brian Rosen wrote: >I do not accept that the telecommunications industry can override a >reasonable requirement like this making an argument that "the operator may >need resources for other purposes". This is an individual call, and we're >talking about disconnect under control of one of two humans. There aren't >many 'resources' that are available for 'other purposes'. PSAPs aren't >dictators, nor do they have veto rights, but this is a pretty reasonable >requirement I believe. I continue to believe we're talking past each other here, and my experience has been that folks talking past each other tend to get louder and listen less. I'm trying to avoid that by trying to go back to the basics here, and I hope you'll take that in the spirit meant--trying to avoid this turning into a situation where anyone stops listening. At the base line, I think one of the issues is your use of the term "requirement". A group of PSAP operators would like the system that replaces the current system to have specific characteristics. One of the desired characteristics is that only a PSAP call-taker can terminate a call which has reached the PSAP. If Marc is correct, the Canadian jurisdiction PSAPs live without this characteristic for about two-thirds of their calls. The system clearly works when this characteristic is not present. It may be a very strong desire, but there is no overall system failure when it is not present. U.S. PSAPs had this characteristic and it was dropped, over their objections. The 911 system continues to work here, even without this. Call-backs and other methods are used instead. The PSAP operators feel that this is not as good, and they are the experts on what works for them here; no one is denying this. But some of us have serious concerns about adding protocol mechanisms to the ECRIT system to support this characteristic, especially if they necessitate the introduction of a negotiation phase that is not currently present. The risks here are quite real, and they are obvious enough that even amateurs can see them. If a negotiation phase adds significant latency, rates of call abandonment *will* go up. To take a ridiculous number, if it takes 20 seconds to do this negotiation, supporting this is out of the question. Way too many people will give up completely or be in seriously worse straits to make that sensible. That number is clearly not probable, but it indicates the need to balance. That same need for balance is needed in other arenas: the need to maintain the privacy of the user may be mandated or desired in some jurisdictions; the need to maintain the security of the communication channel; the need for the caller to make other calls; and, yes, the need to free resources so that *other* callers can make their own calls (which in disaster situations may also be to emergency services). I know I would feel more like I'm being heard if you acknowledged that there are other needs to balance here, and I hope you hear that I understand that PSAP operators have experience with this system that I do not. regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ Ecrit mailing list Ecrit@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Henning Schulzrinne
- [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature Call … Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… James M. Polk
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… James M. Polk
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Marc Linsner
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… James M. Polk
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Marc Linsner
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Marc Linsner
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Marc Linsner
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature C… Henning Schulzrinne