Subject: RE: [Ecrit] NENA Comments on draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-00 -Indentifying Emergency Calls

From: "Roger Marshall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:29:30 -0700

On 10/18/05, Brian Rosen wrote:
 
>Requirement A1 is not sufficient, because it does not include the step
of disseminating the local emergency dial code ("9-1-1" "1-1-2", etc)
and >provide for the mapping of the local code to the universal
identifier.   Need at least one, and possibly two additional
requirements:  
 
Please send proposed text in the form of requirement(s) to the list for
review.
 
>Requirement A1c is not specific enough.  First of all, we need to
distinguish a universal identifier from forms of QoS marking.  A1c may
imply QoS >marking, when some other form of marking was intended.  This
should be clarified.  Finally, we DO think QoS marking is a requirement,
and we >think that applies separately to the session signaling and the
packets in which signaling and media are sent.
 
For the QoS requirement need, please provide proposed text to the list,
along with relevant QoS references (RFC's, etc.) which may exist already
as a basis for discussion.  Examples of QoS in signaling would be
helpful to the discussion.

Based on the other suggestions for clarity, I am proposing a change to
the existing (as modified) A1c requirement:
 
Original (published) requirement: 
 
A1c.  Emergency Marking: Emergency requests which are not already
  marked as emergency calls, MUST be recognizable and marked by user
  agents, proxies, and other network elements as emergency calls.

Existing (as modified per Tom Taylor's comments) requirement:

A1c. Emergency Marking:"> Any device in the signaling that recognizes by
some means that the signaling is associated an emergency call MUST add
the emergency indication called for A1a to the signaling before
forwarding it.
 
Proposed changed text per Brian's suggestion:
 
A1c.  Emergency Marking: Any device in the signaling that recognizes by
some means that the signaling is associated an emergency call MUST add
the emergency indication called for A1a to the signaling before
forwarding it.  This marking mechanism must be different than QoS
marking.
 
Motivation: Marking ensures proper handling as an emergency call
downstream elements that may not recognize, for example, a variant of a
logical emergency address (see requirement A4+).

Does this address NENA's concern for the A1c requirement?  Comments from
others with regard to this QoS exemption?
 
Thanks.
 
Roger Marshall

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Brian Rosen
	Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:57 AM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [Ecrit] NENA Comments on
draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-00 -Indentifying Emergency Calls

	NENA has reviewed draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-00, and
specifically has compared them to the
draft-rosen-nena-ecrit-requirements-00.  We commend the author of the
ecrit draft for merging many conflicting source documents.  We have a
number of comments.  I have broken them up relatively arbitrarily by
topic to keep the email threads more relevant, but there is no
significance to the topic.

	Requirement A1 is not sufficient, because it does not include
the step of disseminating the local emergency dial code ("9-1-1"
"1-1-2", etc) and provide for the mapping of the local code to the
universal identifier.   Need at least one, and possibly two additional
requirements:   

	Requirement A1c is not specific enough.  First of all, we need
to distinguish a universal identifier from forms of QoS marking.  A1c
may imply QoS marking, when some other form of marking was intended.
This should be clarified.  Finally, we DO think QoS marking is a
requirement, and we think that applies separately to the session
signaling and the packets in which signaling and media are sent.  

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