[Sipping-emergency] Does validation mean anything location based is ruled by the 911 folks?
"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Wed, 29 September 2004 00:53 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10435 for <sipping-emergency-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:53:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCSqb-0008Dh-Tu for sipping-emergency-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:01:35 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCSYO-00028D-PW; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:42:44 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCSOv-0007nK-1Z for sipping-emergency@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:32:57 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09082 for <sipping-emergency@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:32:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCSWp-0007mn-Us for sipping-emergency@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:41:09 -0400
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2004 17:32:33 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from wells.cisco.com (wells.cisco.com [171.71.177.223]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i8T0WLwp029642 for <sipping-emergency@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jmpolk-w2k01.diablo.cisco.com (ssh-sjc-1.cisco.com [171.68.225.134]) by wells.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id RAA23312 for <sipping-emergency@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040928191908.034536c8@localhost>
X-Sender: jmpolk@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:32:22 -0500
To: sipping-emergency@ietf.org
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Subject: [Sipping-emergency] Does validation mean anything location based is ruled by the 911 folks?
X-BeenThere: sipping-emergency@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: sipping-emergency.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-emergency>, <mailto:sipping-emergency-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Sender: sipping-emergency-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sipping-emergency-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Does the need/rule (law?) for validation of a civil address for 911-type
services mean coordinates will never be transmitted in the coming location
industry?
The whole idea of providing location to someone or some service is to
convey where you are or get where they are or where the relation is between
the two. If 911 services are going to require civil location validation in
order to place a 911-type call, then doesn't that mean that any multimedia
device I happen to have will have to support a civil location only, and be
validated by the 911-type service prior to me being able to send you my
location in any protocol?
Just wondering where we're being steered...
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