Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering

["Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[e-mail]>]

Good question, Spencer. 

Here is the story: During the IETF#72 ECRIT meeting we said that we
would request a longer slot for ECRIT and then use one part of the
meeting to discuss the next steps regarding the authority-to-citizen
given that we got good feedback from a previous adhoc meeting (I guess
that was in the Chicago IETF). 

Brian and Steve were nominated to organize this early warning session. 

Anyway, when I wanted to request a longer slot for ECRIT but Cullen
suggested to schedule a separate (official) BOF instead. As such, Marc
and I changed our request to a small slot for ECRIT and Brian and Steve
started their work on the charter proposal for the BOF. For some reason
they haven't sent the text to the list yet and I might not even have the
latest version. The BOF is listed on the scheduled BOF page (see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki) and I was hoping to see some
mails from Brian/Steve sometime soon. 

Since the BOF did not take place yet there is obviously no decision on
whether that work should be done in the IETF at all and in what group
(if at all). 

Ciao
Hannes

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>On Behalf Of ext Spencer Dawkins
>Sent: 14 October, 2008 17:07
>To: ECRIT
>Subject: Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT WG Rechartering
>
>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-namespac
>> e-
>> 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.t
>> xt 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
>
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit