IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB and emergency services

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Tue, 27 September 2011 22:16 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 3697321F9068 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 uMA+wpp4tN8L for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s36.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s36.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01A621F9067 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU152-W28 ([65.55.111.73]) by blu0-omc2-s36.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:19:16 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU152-W28C6CA1EDEEBDD0E78E9DB93F00@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_f3d64b8f-bab2-4379-a54b-012786b74b36_"
X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.72]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: ibc@aliax.net, ted.ietf@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:19:15 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfmbTL6e1HW95QzAt-AYgMUu3sEyyR4SgRuMrNAVMqibmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BLU152-W318BAE2CE0C609B1BB45CD93F30@phx.gbl>, <CA+9kkMA5zZe7D+2F_MmfJgkJCS9CRpDMN3zn=uTjMina-pGaAw@mail.gmail.com>, <BLU152-W39115E9C2A50B4A634789093F00@phx.gbl>, <CA+9kkMBAy2AXi+DwKjqJOr1yFaXYiG96iDPi1oZGuU6HwbBDkA@mail.gmail.com>, <CALiegfmbTL6e1HW95QzAt-AYgMUu3sEyyR4SgRuMrNAVMqibmQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2011 22:19:16.0319 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E6CB6F0:01CC7D63]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB and 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, 27 Sep 2011 22:16:33 -0000

> I agree. I don't know where this topic comes from, but IMHO it makes
> no sense to consider a WebRTC provider a "usual" PSTN operator. It
> would be a show-stopper.

[BA] Agree.    Not sure where this topic comes from either, since I didn't suggest this in my original post (in fact, I specifically noted that emergency obligations would not apply to many RTCWeb applications). 

For example, a WebRTC application that does not provide the ability to make or 
receive calls from the PSTN would not be classified as an "inter-connected VoIP" 
provider and AFAIK would not currently have an obligation to provide emergency services (at least within the US).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email