Re: [rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case and requirement document, “Emergency Services”

[Gunnar Hellstrom <[e-mail]>]

I see a need to create a whole new strand of documents standardizing 
"application of RTCWEB".

It would contain items that are not directly linked to details of the 
media streams standardized in rtcweb, but are important in apparent 
applications of the technology.
It would contribute to the ambition to not create silos.

Emergency service access is mainly one such application area.

RFC 6881 says:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SP-1: If a device or application expects to be able to place a call for 
help, the service provider that supports it MUST facilitate emergency 
calling. Some jurisdictions have regulations governing this.

ED-2: Devices that create media sessions and exchange real-time audio, 
video, and/or text and that have the capability to establish sessions to 
a wide variety of addresses and communicate over private IP networks or 
the Internet SHOULD support emergency calls. Some jurisdictions have 
regulations governing this.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

These requirements will clearly apply to some rtcweb applications, and 
it will be important to both remind rtcweb implementers about them and 
to develop common approaches to how to meet the requirements.

One aspect that touches the recent discussion on SRTP usage in RTCWEB is 
that the specifications from the emergency service organisations EENA 
and NENA prefer DTLS-SRTP but accept SDES.


In summary: Emergency service requirements surely needs to be described 
in rtcweb related specifications. If it is not mentioned among the 
kernel use-cases it should be in specifications about application of rtcweb.

Gunnar


On 2013-04-29 16:01, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
>
>
> This relates to the comments to the WG last call of the use-cases and 
> requirements document [1].
>
> The topic in this mail is Emergency Services. This was discussed in 
> [2] - [16] (i hope I found all the relevant mails, please correct me 
> if I missed any), and my conclusion is that we should not add specific 
> use-cases or requirements for Emergency Services.
>
> Stefan
>
>
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06136.html
>
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06160.html
>
> [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06226.html
> [4] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06227.html
> [5] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06229.html
> [6] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06231.html
> [7] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06232.html
> [8] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06239.html
> [9] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06230.html
> [10] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06237.html
> [11] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06242.html
> [12] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06243.html
> [13] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06244.html
> [14] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06246.html
> [15] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06267.html
> [16] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06268.html
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb