Re: [Sipping-emergency] Re: [Sipping-emergency] draft-schulzrinne -sipping-emergency-req-00

Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> Tue, 25 February 2003 22:50 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20587 for <sipping-emergency-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:50:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1PN02U06001 for sipping-emergency-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:00:02 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1PN02p05998 for <sipping-emergency-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:00:02 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20584 for <sipping-emergency-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:50:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1PN01p05990 for <sipping-emergency-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:00:01 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1PMxbp05952 for <sipping-emergency@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:59:37 -0500
Received: from marionberry.cc.columbia.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20581 for <sipping-emergency@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:49:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cs.columbia.edu (tallgrass.netlab.uky.edu [204.198.76.66]) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by marionberry.cc.columbia.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1PMrkWP022723 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:53:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3E5BF40F.4020708@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:54:07 -0500
From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
CC: sipping-emergency@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sipping-emergency] Re: [Sipping-emergency] draft-schulzrinne -sipping-emergency-req-00
References: <15A2739B7DAA624D8091C65981D7DA8101214E3F@stntexch2.va.neustar.com>
In-Reply-To: <15A2739B7DAA624D8091C65981D7DA8101214E3F@stntexch2.va.neustar.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sipping-emergency-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: sipping-emergency-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: sipping-emergency@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-emergency>, <mailto:sipping-emergency-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <sipping-emergency.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping-emergency@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-emergency-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-emergency>, <mailto:sipping-emergency-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>>From my perspective anyway, what I'm concerned about is that the full e2e
> solution be bundled separately from the more immediately achievable work.
> Whether or not these two are in separate sections is less material to me,
> but ultimately, we know that the section 4 solution is not depending on
> geopriv, but the later material is. I think there is value in having the
> section 4 work go forward on its own merits, and fully specifying this
> solution - I know you think this is trivial, but to me, trivial means
> achievable. :) Putting the later e2e work in a separate document would
> remove any geopriv dependencies for the section 4 work.

I would like to identify any real work which isn't just "purchasing 
requirements for PSAP RFP" in the trunk replacement part. Can you 
identify anything?

I happen to think that while end-to-end or even first-mile (something I 
haven't called out explicitly) does need geo information that the 
problem can be scoped properly so that it does not interfere with 
geopriv work. At this point, I don't see the need to specify in detail 
how the PSAP gets the location of the caller. We know it needs to - I 
don't think geopriv is going to change that. There are only two 
plausible ways to convey location - in a 'using protocol' and in some 
out-of-band retrieval mode using a geopriv-specific mechanism. I don't 
think that level of detail is controversial or likely to change.

Also, the PSAP selection problem can be partially solved with existing 
(apparently non-controversial) items in geopriv, namely the DHCP items.

Thus, as long as we assume that geopriv does its job, we can fill in the 
other pieces and make progress, treating geopriv as a suitable black box.

Thus, if we scope the work properly, I don't see why we'd bump into 
geopriv issues except saying "you guys over there, we'll need you, get 
busy".

Henning

_______________________________________________
Sipping-emergency mailing list
Sipping-emergency@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-emergency