Re: [rtcweb] Comments on use case draft

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Mon, 29 August 2011 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2925A21F86AA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.456
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.717, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZSJ+0H+Fl5kq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s14.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s14.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 478FB21F8663 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU152-W38 ([65.55.111.135]) by blu0-omc4-s14.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:33:20 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU152-W3866E9B35074092D24A96A93140@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_7eb0f42d-d842-4063-83ff-35abb14b7c4b_"
X-Originating-IP: [98.203.198.61]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: <stewe@stewe.org>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:33:20 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <CA800D31.30398%stewe@stewe.org>
References: <20110828152836.20130.11667.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>, <CA800D31.30398%stewe@stewe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2011 03:33:20.0615 (UTC) FILETIME=[661B9770:01CC65FC]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comments on use case draft
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 03:31:58 -0000


> 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.