RE: [Sipping-emergency] proposed charter, new wg on emergency calling and routing

In-line.....

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipping-emergency-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:sipping-emergency-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Rosen
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 12:04 PM
> To: 'James M. Polk'; 'Peterson, Jon'; sipping-emergency@ietf.org
> Cc: mankin@psg.com
> Subject: RE: [Sipping-emergency] proposed charter,new wg on 
> emergency calling and routing
> Importance: Low
> 
> 
> When you place an emergency call, the location is used to 
> determine where to send the call, and it is used to dispatch 
> responders.  If the location you supply does not match 
> anything the call center recognizes, the wrong thing may 
> happen.  What you want to do is to compare the address you 
> have against a list maintained by the emergency response 
> system to make sure they know where that is.
> 
> An example is illustrative.  If you ask me my home address, 
> I'd tell you that it is 470 Conrad Drive, Mars, PA.  However, 
> that is NOT the address that should be used to determine 
> where to send an emergency call from my home.  That is 
> because the post office boundary is not the same as the 
> emergency call system boundary.  

So?  As long as '470 Conrad Drive, Mars, PA.' is unique, modern data
processing can handle it.

If you were to determine the 
> serving ERC without validation, you would send my emergency 
> call to the Butler County ERC, which serves Mars, rather than 
> to the NEWCOM center that serves Pine Township, where I live.

Validation and routing are 2 separate issues.  If in fact, 470 Conrad.....,
is a good address, the routing function (which will be based on data from
the ERC entities) better get it right and send the call the NEWCOM center as
you describe.  All that validation *may* offer is to verify that you (the
end-user) didn't spell Conrad as Conard (or put Street instead of Drive,
etc.)!  I realize there are locales that utilize a different 'location'
address for emergency purposes than the postal address, but the IETF can't
fix this.

I'm not against validation, but your example isn't the real reason for
validation. 

> 
[snip]

-Marc Linsner-

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