Re: [Sipping-emergency] proposed charter, new wg on emergency cal ling and routing

Peterson, Jon wrote:
> Henning,
> 
> Certainly, this charter was not intended to guarantee to any particular
> outcome of the standards process, but rather to select a narrow scope of
> work that is likely to be achievable. No doubt a choice of scope can make
> all the difference in the selection of a solution. If you're especially
> concerned about, say, the mention of IRIS in the text below, that can be
> elided from the final version. The deliverables text there is still rough.
> Specific suggestions would be helpful, obviously.

One relatively simple division has three deliverables:

- A terminology and requirements informational document

- A 'how to identify an emergency call' BCP

- A 'how to route an emergency call based on location information' 
BCP/STD (depending on whether new protocol work is needed or one simply 
describes how to use something existing for this)

I find it somewhat strange, also, that the call routing protocol isn't 
mentioned. Should the WG concern itself with H.323, Skype, Asterisk and 
other protocols? (While I suspect some similarities across these, 
scoping might be helpful here. I'm again speaking from NENA experience 
here, particularly in the I2 discussions.)

> 
> I appreciate that you feel a requirement has been missed in the charter; I
> have a hard time looking at the deliverables you cite below, though, and
> understanding in what respect they suggest a nationally-specific or
> centralized design for this work (neither of which would be default
> assumptions for IETF work). Can you suggest any specific language here that
> will improve the starter text? Do you just want to see something in the

My concern is primarily due to the directory notion. Once this is 
removed, the worry is diminished. I think writing this requirement as 
part of the charter would be quite helpful.

> descriptive text of the charter to the effect that the design here needs to
> be delegative and allow distribution of call routing data? If so, I'd have
> no problem including something to that effect.

Indeed. Let's just say that there are people in certain companies (not 
generally active in the IETF) that have an interest in a 
centrally-controlled, pay-for-use one-big-national directory model since 
that corresponds nicely to their existing ALI business model. Those 
involved in the NENA discussion can fill in the details, but they are 
probably not relevant here.

> 
> Jon Peterson
> NeuStar, Inc.

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