Subject: [Ecrit] Open Issues from the 3GPP CT/IETF ECRIT Joint Session on Emergency Services

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:08:57 +0200

Hi Hannu,
Hi all,

at the 3GPP CT/IETF ECRIT joint session on emergency services we 
discussed the following aspects that required follow-up actions:

IMS emergency call identifier, Emergency Dial String, Emergency Number:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Text from the meeting minutes:
"
Hannu then discussed the detection of emergency calls.  The network is 
required to detect that a call is an emergency call, but no specific 
requirements have been made on how this should happen.  The terminal 
must also be able to detect an emergency number (e.g. 112) or an "IMS 
emergency call identifier".  This latter is a placeholder in the 3gpp 
architecture.  The group then had a lively discussion of the role of the 
IMS emergency call identifier.  After the discussion, it is clear that 
"identifier" is being used by 3gpp here in a way here that does not 
match the way it is used by the current IETF document set.  The intended 
3gpp use is as a short, mnemonic string that could be input by the users 
to indicate that a call is an emergency.  As such, it is closer to what 
the IETF thinks of as a dialstring, though without the common 
connotation that it be purely numeric.  The URN:service:sos identifier 
family, in contrast, is intended to be used in protocol exchanges rather 
than as user-input strings.  In different UIs, different input methods 
would be used to invoke the look-up of those identifiers and the 
initiation of emergency calls to the PSAPs identified. In some UIs, the 
mapping might be from a well-known numeric string, from a menu, or even 
from an action like the deployment of an airbag and the trigger of a 
related sensor.

Hannu asked if there was general agreement that there was no reason to 
require a non-number user interface element.  There was agreement to 
recommend that 3gpp should consider removing this requirement while the 
exchanges are limited to voice calls.  For multimedia, it may be 
required.  A CR to make this change would need to be drafted and 
approved in 3gpp if 3gpp accepts this recommendation.
"

Questions:
* Has a CR been submitted?
* Is there a chance to reduce the terminology mismatch?

Privacy:
--------

Text from the meeting minutes:
"
The group then discussed the interaction of emergency call location and 
privacy.  The current 3gpp requirements state that locating emergency 
calls over-rides a subscriber's privacy request, but that local 
regulation may over-ride this requirement to restore the presumption of 
privacy.  The Japanese delegation at a previous meeting had this privacy 
concern, but there remained some confusion about the exact nature of the 
issue.  The group recommended that the Japanese delegates be probed by 
3gpp for further information on their needs.
"

Question: Has the 3GPP learned more about the privacy aspects raised by 
the Japanese delegate?

Roaming:
--------

Text from the meeting minutes:
"
Brian raised the issue of calling during disasters scenarios, when links 
are broken between local network and home network.  In the current 3gpp 
spec, this is the same as an unauthenticated call by a phone without a 
sim or usim card, and the same rules apply.  Several folks raised issues 
with the fragility of this connection between the home and local network 
and expressed concern that it implied two different cases (failure of 
authentication because of network conditions and failure of 
authentication because of lack of credentials) were being subsumed into 
a single response.

During the course of this discussion, James Polk asked whether 3GPP had 
defined roaming.  There are, unfortunately, several possible answers, 
but the spirit of the 3gpp requirements is that the entities involved 
share a regulatory environment.  This usually means that they are in the 
same country, but the U.S. is a special case.

Milo noted that the issue of roaming is not quite the same in 3gpp2; 
there the link local address or COA is used to contact the local p-cscf, 
and registration is with that local server, regardless of the roaming 
status.

This discussion caused the group to recommend two action items for 3gpp: 
  to open the question of what the criteria are for roaming in an access 
independent manner, and to open the related question of what are the 
cellular specific criteria for roaming.
"

Question: What happened to the two action items?

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:41:01 -0500

Hannes

The way I read what you wrote below, you are waiting for specific responses 
from the Japanese delegate on the ability to over-ride user set privacy 
policy before it can be done.  Japan is not the only place in which this 
policy exists.  There are places (i.e. states) in the US that have a 
similar policy - that 'even when calling 911, a user can choose to omit 
their location from the call'.

At 11:08 AM 8/20/2006 +0200, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>calls over-rides a subscriber's privacy request, but that local regulation 
>may over-ride this requirement to restore the presumption of privacy.  The 
>Japanese delegation at a previous meeting had this privacy concern, but 
>there remained some confusion about the exact nature of the issue.  The 
>group recommended that the Japanese delegates be probed by 3gpp for 
>further information on their needs.
>"
>

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:00:09 +0200

I was reviewing the meeting minutes and noticed that a few items require 
further actions. Hannu told me that he will ping the delegate to get his 
response. The same is true for other items that require follow-up 
discussions.

A related question: Even if this is an issue (as you stated below) does 
it require some actions by us apart from adding a few lines in some 
documents (e.g., ECRIT arch. document)? At the moment I don't think so.

Ciao
Hannes

PS: I wasn't aware that there are some state in the US with such a 
privacy policy.

James M. Polk schrieb:
> Hannes
> 
> The way I read what you wrote below, you are waiting for specific 
> responses from the Japanese delegate on the ability to over-ride user 
> set privacy policy before it can be done.  Japan is not the only place 
> in which this policy exists.  There are places (i.e. states) in the US 
> that have a similar policy - that 'even when calling 911, a user can 
> choose to omit their location from the call'.
> 
>> The group then discussed the interaction of emergency call location 
>> and privacy.  The current 3gpp requirements state that locating 
>> emergency calls over-rides a subscriber's privacy request, but that 
>> local regulation may over-ride this requirement to restore the 
>> presumption of privacy.  The Japanese delegation at a previous meeting 
>> had this privacy concern, but there remained some confusion about the 
>> exact nature of the issue.  The group recommended that the Japanese 
>> delegates be probed by 3gpp for further information on their needs.
>> "
>>
>> Question: Has the 3GPP learned more about the privacy aspects raised 
>> by the Japanese delegate?
> 
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:05:31 -0500

At 09:00 PM 8/21/2006 +0200, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>response. The same is true for other items that require follow-up discussions.
>
>A related question: Even if this is an issue (as you stated below) does it 
>require some actions by us apart from adding a few lines in some documents 
>(e.g., ECRIT arch. document)? At the moment I don't think so.

only that we allow local jurisdictions to allow the owner of this UE/UA to 
make this configuration (as a rulemaker).

>Ciao
>Hannes
>
>PS: I wasn't aware that there are some state in the US with such a privacy 
>policy.

yep, thus we need to make sure the text allows this as a local decision 
within a jurisdiction.  The US state of Georgia, I believe, has such a law 
- or so I was told by Tom Breen from BellSouth (who is based in Atlanta, 
and quoted the law as applicable to a previous discussion on this topic). I 
got the impression Tom knew of other states that had the law.

>>responses from the Japanese delegate on the ability to over-ride user set 
>>privacy policy before it can be done.  Japan is not the only place in 
>>which this policy exists.  There are places (i.e. states) in the US that 
>>have a similar policy - that 'even when calling 911, a user can choose to 
>>omit their location from the call'.

---

From: Gunnar Hellström <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:10:28 +0200

The minutes say:
"Hannu asked if there was general agreement that there was no reason to
require a non-number user interface element.  There was agreement to
recommend that 3gpp should consider removing this requirement while the
exchanges are limited to voice calls."

Everybody should by now be aware that there should be no situation when
there is only voice calls to emergency services. Support of real-time text
as well as voice for emergency calls is embedded in ecrit requirements and
included in 3GPP specifications.

( The conclusion may be right anyway, the same numerical emergency number
should be suitable for both calls with voice and with text and with combined
voice and real-time text. )

Gunnar

-------------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström, Omnitor
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:09 AM
To: ECRIT; [email-masked]
Subject: [Ecrit] Open Issues from the 3GPP CT/IETF ECRIT Joint Session
on Emergency Services

Hi Hannu,
Hi all,

Questions:

Privacy:
--------

Roaming:
--------

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:26:43 +0200

Hi James,

interesting. To some extend Henning's proposal to add additional 
information to the LoST response might go along these lines. See
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at:8080/lost/issue7

We dumped his suggestion but maybe we want to revisit the idea again in 
the future.

Ciao
Hannes

James M. Polk schrieb:
>> I was reviewing the meeting minutes and noticed that a few items 
>> require further actions. Hannu told me that he will ping the delegate 
>> to get his response. The same is true for other items that require 
>> follow-up discussions.
>>
>> A related question: Even if this is an issue (as you stated below) 
>> does it require some actions by us apart from adding a few lines in 
>> some documents (e.g., ECRIT arch. document)? At the moment I don't 
>> think so.
> 
> only that we allow local jurisdictions to allow the owner of this UE/UA 
> to make this configuration (as a rulemaker).
> 
> 
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
> within a jurisdiction.  The US state of Georgia, I believe, has such a 
> law - or so I was told by Tom Breen from BellSouth (who is based in 
> Atlanta, and quoted the law as applicable to a previous discussion on 
> this topic). I got the impression Tom knew of other states that had the 
> law.
> 
> 
>> James M. Polk schrieb:
>>> Hannes
>>> set privacy policy before it can be done.  Japan is not the only 
>>> place in which this policy exists.  There are places (i.e. states) in 
>>> the US that have a similar policy - that 'even when calling 911, a 
>>> user can choose to omit their location from the call'.
>>>> presumption of privacy.  The Japanese delegation at a previous 
>>>> meeting had this privacy concern, but there remained some confusion 
>>>> about the exact nature of the issue.  The group recommended that the 
>>>> Japanese delegates be probed by 3gpp for further information on 
>>>> their needs.
>>>> "
>>>>