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

"Brian Rosen" <br@brianrosen.net> Wed, 08 October 2008 12:51 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 059CF3A6774; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:51:12 -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 EB6ED3A659A for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.471
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 1s5mlRwEpnrS for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ebru.winwebhosting.com (ebru.winwebhosting.com [74.55.202.130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8853A6774 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:51:10 -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 1KnYV1-0007oR-J9; Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:50:43 -0500
From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
To: 'Marc Linsner' <mlinsner@cisco.com>
References: <04e701c928a4$d9277880$8b766980$@net> <C5114CA4.CD1A%mlinsner@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C5114CA4.CD1A%mlinsner@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:50:41 -0400
Message-ID: <068a01c92944$7a72d230$6f587690$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AckooC/i8oVjuBu8S0uFXP7ygv670wABB+lAAAfRXW4AH/rlAA==
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

So, what, because wireless carriers refused to implement it, despite
repeated requests to do so, and wireless is now more popular, we should
strike the requirement?

PSAPs I talk to consider this a requirement.  They are VERY unhappy the
carriers do not honor the requirement, in both wireline and wireless, in the
U.S.  Canada is very unhappy about the wireless situation.  Both are adamant
that they have a REQUIREMENT for this capability.

As with any other protocol issue, there are no protocol police.  We can
define the mechanism, but implementation may or may not occur.  The PSAPs
have a requirement.  It comes from experience.  We should honor it I think.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 5:28 PM
To: Brian Rosen
Cc: 'ECRIT'
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature Call Termination

Brian,

On 10/7/08 1:48 PM, "Brian Rosen" <br@brianrosen.net> wrote:

> It is in use in some jurisdictions now.  Canada is an example.  It was
> deployed in the U.S., it got lost, and they mostly want it back.  It is
not
> deployed in some areas.  The requirements state that if it's not needed,
it
> doesn't stop termination, which implies some feature signaling with the
> appropriate defaults.

Remember, in the jurisdictions where this is currently deployed, it works
for only 35% of 9-1-1 calls (as 65% are from cellular).

> 
> In jurisdictions that have it deployed, I am not aware of the kind of
> problems you were imagining.  The current implementations put the call
taker
> in charge of signaling alerts.
> 
> Brian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1:15 PM
> To: Brian Rosen; 'James M. Polk'; 'Henning Schulzrinne'; 'Hannes
Tschofenig'
> Cc: 'ECRIT'
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] IETF ECRIT Design Team on Premature Call Termination
> 
> At 7:15 AM -0700 10/7/08, Brian Rosen wrote:
>> It's manual, not automatic.
>> 
>> When the PSAP call taker decides the call is over, then call termination
>> occurs.  They release the call (with a button).  In the proposed
> mechanisms,
>> the caller cannot terminate until then.

What document contains the proposed mechanisms?

-Marc-


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