Re: [rtcweb] Comments on use case draft

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

> It is my understanding that for regulatory compliance, in many developed
> countries, there will be a need for an E911 type of service *IF* the
> solution allows to "dial" an E.164 phone number.  

[BA] The following FAQ describes some of the current obligations of "interconnected VoIP" services within the US:
http://transition.fcc.gov/voip/

While the current definition requires the ability to make outbound calls as well as receive inbound calls, there is a proceeding in progress to amend the definition:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/amending-definition-interconnected-voip-service-section-93-commissions-rules-wireless-e911-

>From a technical perspective, it isn't clear to me that the difference 
between the existing and proposed definitions of "interconnected VoIP" 
will have much impact on the RTCWEB requirements.  

> If there is a reasonable expectation that a webrtc service with outbound
> dialing capability in E.164 number-space requires E911 handling, then it
> does not make sense to stick our collective heads in the sand and ignore the issue.  

I don't think that the WG is ignoring the issue.  It's just that there are quite a few proceedings in progress in the US, EU and other places around the globe right now, and it's likely that we'll have a better picture of the regulatory requirements within a year (or even 6 months) compared to where we are today.