Re: [rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case and requirement document, "Emergency Services"
"Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> Tue, 30 April 2013 16:06 UTC
Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
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 5275C21F9428 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 adHHQyTQZtGh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com [50.87.16.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ABA8621F9C4A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 8700 invoked by uid 0); 30 Apr 2013 16:05:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by oproxy12.bluehost.com with SMTP; 30 Apr 2013 16:05:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:To:From; bh=21scHVjc/F3XklD3RJ0MCijfMghVGtjvKiOTYi2urxw=; b=Q5HUx3DPVbpO3lC0zjwQCe5nQ2JBzZdaChfdZG0yNXPtfWt3fo37qlkAzh2Q/oD/SZljIoI5pQkXOjEeM5Jm3VuMx8dcjn5/cugjesQLbOD/v76OVakoQXVbA8sWL01i;
Received: from [72.66.111.101] (port=51145 helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1UXD3y-0005lb-D6; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:05:54 -0600
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
To: 'Gunnar Hellstrom' <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>, rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <517E7D25.2030706@ericsson.com> <517F95C3.90101@omnitor.se>
In-Reply-To: <517F95C3.90101@omnitor.se>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:05:50 -0400
Message-ID: <008601ce45bc$96b49bb0$c41dd310$@shockey.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQHXrB8OdXvw+A/V13wkLPQ/HfK/SgIsQWWcmMq+zSA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 72.66.111.101 authed with richard@shockey.us}
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case and requirement document, "Emergency Services"
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: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:06:23 -0000
And http://www.fcc.gov/document/section-718-accessibility-requirements-internet- browsers-mobile-0 -----Original Message----- From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gunnar Hellstrom Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:58 AM To: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case and requirement document, Emergency Services 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 > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- [rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case and re… Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case an… Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case an… Richard Shockey
- Re: [rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case an… Bernard Aboba