Subject: [Ecrit] IEEE 802 Emergency Services

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:15:40 +0100

FYI, the IEEE 802 Executive Committee Study Group on Emergency Services
are meeting this week. You may find information about the goals and
schedules of the SG at http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/ecsg/

Dan

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:29:06 -0500

Dan,

Thanks for the note.  I would encourage ECRIT participants to take a  
look at what this group is doing, since it is likely to have a strong  
interaction with ECRIT technologies, for example with respect to  
unauthenticated calling.  At the ESW a couple of weeks ago, James  
Winterbottom, Martin Dawson, and I spent a fair bit of time talking  
with the SG chair (Geoff Thompson), and based on the initial sketch he  
gave of when they have in mind (essentially a layer-2 tunnel to an  
"emergency services router"), there may need to be a lot more dialogue  
about how layer 2 can best support ECRIT.

--Richard

On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

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

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:12:18 -0800

This is the second instantiation of an Emergency Services Study Group within IEEE 802.   The first instantiation (within IEEE 802.21) did not succeed in getting its proposed PAR approved, so an IEEE 802-wide Executive Committee Study group was formed to draw in input from a larger group. 

There were a number of issues which lead to the withdrawal of the original PAR, some of which were summarized by Tony Jeffree in his PAR review:
http://www.ieee802.org/secmail/msg11779.html

Aside from those issues (several of which may still apply to the new PAR), there may be questions about the type of "layer 2 tunnel" that is being proposed.

In one scenario, this would merely be an "emergency services VLAN".   This would presumably provide access to services required to make an emergency call and not much else.  However, from an IP (and SIP) point of view, the environment appears normal.  Aside from some potentially unique topological aspects, I would assume that no changes to the ECRIT architecture would be required. 

However, there was also discussion in the IEEE 802.21 study group about an "emergency services Ethertype".    If the new Ethertype is not for use in "MAC in MAC" encapsulation, this would raise the question of exactly how IP (or SIP for that matter) would function.  Since a new Ethertype would not be the IPv4 or IPv6 Ethertype, IP as we know it could not run over it. 
So unless it is the intent to run signaling over "bare metal" (e.g. SIP over Ethernet) it's not clear to me how an Emergency Call could be placed.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:14:39 +0100

This needs to be followed and we may want to provide comments to their
proposed charter. The presentation at
https://mentor.ieee.org/802-sg-emergency-services/dcn/09/sg-emergency-se
rvices-09-0008-00-ESSG-es-preso-for-wgs-091116.pdf
<https://mentor.ieee.org/802-sg-emergency-services/dcn/09/sg-emergency-s
ervices-09-0008-00-ESSG-es-preso-for-wgs-091116.pdf>  still speaks about
'Provide Packet Type for ES' for example, don't know if they mean
Ethertype or some other way of marking.
 
Dan

________________________________

	From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:12 PM
	To: [email-masked]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [Ecrit] IEEE 802 Emergency Services

	This is the second instantiation of an Emergency Services Study
Group within IEEE 802.   The first instantiation (within IEEE 802.21)
did not succeed in getting its proposed PAR approved, so an IEEE
802-wide Executive Committee Study group was formed to draw in input
from a larger group. 
	
	There were a number of issues which lead to the withdrawal of
the original PAR, some of which were summarized by Tony Jeffree in his
PAR review:
	http://www.ieee802.org/secmail/msg11779.html
	
	Aside from those issues (several of which may still apply to the
new PAR), there may be questions about the type of "layer 2 tunnel" that
is being proposed.
	
	In one scenario, this would merely be an "emergency services
VLAN".   This would presumably provide access to services required to
make an emergency call and not much else.  However, from an IP (and SIP)
point of view, the environment appears normal.  Aside from some
potentially unique topological aspects, I would assume that no changes
to the ECRIT architecture would be required. 
	
	However, there was also discussion in the IEEE 802.21 study
group about an "emergency services Ethertype".    If the new Ethertype
is not for use in "MAC in MAC" encapsulation, this would raise the
question of exactly how IP (or SIP for that matter) would function.
Since a new Ethertype would not be the IPv4 or IPv6 Ethertype, IP as we
know it could not run over it. 
	So unless it is the intent to run signaling over "bare metal"
(e.g. SIP over Ethernet) it's not clear to me how an Emergency Call
could be placed. 

	
	> > FYI, the IEEE 802 Executive Committee Study Group on
Emergency 
	> > Services

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:39:25 -0500

When I talked to Geoff, he was using the term "Ethertype", but he may  
have been using that as a representative example.
--Richard

On Nov 18, 2009, at 5:14 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> This needs to be followed and we may want to provide comments to  
> their proposed charter. The presentation at https://mentor.ieee.org/802-sg-emergency-services/dcn/09/sg-emergency-services-09-0008-00-ESSG-es-preso-for-wgs-091116.pdf 
>  still speaks about 'Provide Packet Type for ES' for example, don't  
> know if they mean Ethertype or some other way of marking.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> Group within IEEE 802.   The first instantiation (within IEEE  
> 802.21) did not succeed in getting its proposed PAR approved, so an  
> IEEE 802-wide Executive Committee Study group was formed to draw in  
> input from a larger group.
>
> There were a number of issues which lead to the withdrawal of the  
> original PAR, some of which were summarized by Tony Jeffree in his  
> PAR review:
> Aside from those issues (several of which may still apply to the new  
> PAR), there may be questions about the type of "layer 2 tunnel" that  
> is being proposed.
>
> VLAN".   This would presumably provide access to services required  
> to make an emergency call and not much else.  However, from an IP  
> (and SIP) point of view, the environment appears normal.  Aside from  
> some potentially unique topological aspects, I would assume that no  
> changes to the ECRIT architecture would be required.
>
> However, there was also discussion in the IEEE 802.21 study group  
> about an "emergency services Ethertype".    If the new Ethertype is  
> not for use in "MAC in MAC" encapsulation, this would raise the  
> Since a new Ethertype would not be the IPv4 or IPv6 Ethertype, IP as  
> we know it could not run over it.
> So unless it is the intent to run signaling over "bare metal" (e.g.  
> SIP over Ethernet) it's not clear to me how an Emergency Call could  
> be placed.
>
>
>
>
> > Dan,
> >