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

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:42:12 -0400

> I changed the subject, as we are off the subject of a new charter,
> as we agree validation should be in that charter.
> 

Brian,

I'm not sure that everyone on this distribution agrees that validation
should be in the scope of this proposed working group. In fact, until I read
your mail, I had gotten the sense that several voices (including James, Marc
and Nate) were questioning this idea.

I think validation as such is probably outside of the core expertise of the
IETF, whereas routing is more likely to be a place where we can do some
solid work. The expertise of the IETF does not lie in subjects like whether
Conrad St is in Butler County or Pine Township, nor in recommending how you
might figure something like that out. Moreover, this seems to be a back-end
application issue, not a protocol issue, as I think a number of people have
already pointed out.

I think that validation is a separable operation from routing, even if it is
a prerequisite in some operational models. An umbrella specification that
described everything you needed to do in order to provide emergency services
might include validation, but that doesn't mean that the routing protocol
should change in any way because validation was or was not performed. But I
don't think the IETF has the breadth to tackle that whole umbrella.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc. 

_______________________________________________
Sipping-emergency mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-emergency

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:11:33 -0400

I did not mean to imply that the group, or IETF agreed on validation.  I was
really only addressing Nate.  Sorry for the confusion.

I can get any number of professionals in the emergency call space to talk to
you about validation.  Nate is a good resource.  It's a fundamental
requirement when you have location.

It's separable in the sense that you could have two entirely separate
mechanisms to determine routing and to validate a location.  However, I
observe that both involve the same sequence of actions: you take a location,
and look it up in a database to determine where to route the call.  If you
don't find the location in the database, then it's not a valid location.
You can do the lookup any time, and use any mechanism to query, but you need
to use a lookup to determine boundaries, and that lookup can, by
implication, validate the address.  That makes the job easy, which is good,
but the real issue is that it's a requirement, a pressing requirement,
that won't wait.

It's not backend if you want the USER to be able to determine if the
location is valid.  I care, and I think it needs to be a first class
requirement.  Whether it's backend or not, it needs to be standardized
because the parts that deliver the address and the parts that have the
database are independent of each other and need to be able to work together.

The expertise is not an issue.  The validation problem is simple.  Any
complications are really in the nature of the representation of the
information and are in any event shared with the routing.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peterson, Jon [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 7:42 PM
> To: 'Brian Rosen'; 'Marc Linsner'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: How to handle Validation failures was RE: [Sipping-emergency]
> proposed charter, new wg on emergency
> 
>

---

From: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:54:23 -0400

Changed the subject line to more correctly describe the function.

Civil location syntax validation could be considered as a requirement when
determining the routing design.  If routing is designed properly, validation
will simply be a routing query that utilizes the response differently.
Validation, in this context, does not include the verification that the
device is actually located where it claims to be, it is simply a process
that verifies that the syntax/value of the location provided describes a
valid location known by all.  A simple routing query that produces a routing
result is validation in this context.

-Marc Linsner-

> Subject: RE: How to handle Validation failures was RE: 
> [Sipping-emergency] proposed charter, new wg on emergency
> 
> 
> 
> > I changed the subject, as we are off the subject of a new 
> charter, as 
> > we agree validation should be in that charter.
> > 
> 
> Brian,
> 
> I'm not sure that everyone on this distribution agrees that 
> validation should be in the scope of this proposed working 
> group. In fact, until I read your mail, I had gotten the 
> sense that several voices (including James, Marc and Nate) 
> were questioning this idea.
> 
> I think validation as such is probably outside of the core 
> expertise of the IETF, whereas routing is more likely to be a 
> place where we can do some solid work. The expertise of the 
> IETF does not lie in subjects like whether Conrad St is in 
> Butler County or Pine Township, nor in recommending how you 
> might figure something like that out. Moreover, this seems to 
> be a back-end application issue, not a protocol issue, as I 
> think a number of people have already pointed out.
> 
> I think that validation is a separable operation from 
> routing, even if it is a prerequisite in some operational 
> models. An umbrella specification that described everything 
> you needed to do in order to provide emergency services might 
> include validation, but that doesn't mean that the routing 
> protocol should change in any way because validation was or 
> was not performed. But I don't think the IETF has the breadth 
> to tackle that whole umbrella.
> 
> Jon Peterson
> NeuStar, Inc. 
>

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:02:21 -0400

Yeah, that's the way I see it. 

Validation is a requirement.
Validation is the first part of determining a route:
A query using the location information as the key.

Any answer is validation.  The answer is the route.

You can do the validation query without needing the route.
You do that as an independent verification that the
location information is valid.  Validation is
automatically performed when you determine the route,
either during a test operation as Henning describes,
or for the actual call (not implying whether route
determination is done prior to or at the time of 
an emergency call).

Jon, is that sufficient information to consider validation
within the charter?

Brian

> From: Marc Linsner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:54 AM
> To: 'Peterson, Jon'; 'Brian Rosen'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Civil location syntax validation - was RE: How to handle
> Validation failures
>