RE: How to handle Validation failures was RE: [Sipping-emergency]proposed charter, new wg on emergency

At 06:58 AM 9/28/2004 -0400, wilcox@e911.psd.state.vt.us wrote:
>Validating location information is implicit for routing.

this might not be the case.

If I live in Dallas, Texas, and Dallas has one centralized ERC (which it 
does), wouldn't my call get routed correctly if I had any of the 3 
following conditions also present?

- the inclusion of my correct street address in Dallas

- the inclusion of a different street address in Dallas than the one I am 
calling from

- no street address provided

Under each of these 3 conditions, the call set-up would still be sent to 
the correct ERC, because for this large metro area, the pertinent 
information (that I was calling from Dallas) was included.

>Otherwise, all calls would be treated as "default" routed or worse, would 
>rely on other mechanisms to provide routing instructions outside the 
>control of the ECC (the ECC currently provides instructions and input on 
>the construct of the MSAG to the extent possible, which is used for the 
>validation process). Unvalidated location information could reduce or even 
>prevent a timely emergency response to a particular location. As I implied 
>before, the lack of validation should not prevent delivery of a call to a 
>geographically appropriate ECC however, all efforts need to be made to 
>ensure that end devices utilize validated location information. So, if the 
>charter of this effort is to decide on how routing is accomplished than 
>validation of the information used to make that routing decision should be 
>considered in the process as well.
>
>Nate

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

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