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

This can be seen as a special case of testing. Thus, if you assume that 
there is a test mode that attempts to reach the PSAP, but does not 
actually ring, you'd have tested the full routing chain, including 
whether the civic address is indeed mappable.

A separate question is whether a separate address-only validation mode 
is appropriate. This probably depends on the overall architecture. As 
we've discussed before, I think there is general agreement that you'd 
want the ability for end-to-end non-interfering testing in any event.

wilcox@e911.psd.state.vt.us wrote:
> Validating location information is implicit for routing. 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

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