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

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:43:16 -0500

Is it pertinent to know which node in the signaling path decided to
promote the urgency of the call? 

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Roger Marshall
Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2005 6:30 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] NENA Comments on
draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-00-Indentifying Emergency Calls

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

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