Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Issue 10: Design of Non-Emergency Components

From: "Roger Marshall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:20:00 -0800

Andy:

Issue 10:  Design of Non-Emergency Components
(http://www.ietf-ecrit.org:8080/ecrit-req/issue10)

"There are no requirements regarding the resilience of the emergency
call routing 
process as it relates to inputs that have not been designed for the
purpose of 
emergency call routing."

I'm not exactly sure what this issue is getting at... a couple of
thoughts, 
1. are we talking about resilience against inadvertant or on-purpose
mis-use, (in which case it seems like a security concern), or 
2. do you mean, that the MP should be resilient in order to support
other types of use, besides just emergency use?

Thanks.

Roger Marshall.

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

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:25:14 -0500

> other types of use, besides just emergency use?

I think I just need to completely restate the concern.

Location information services and sighting services will be present  
in the network for more than just emergency services, such as the  
much talked about "Where is the nearest Starbucks?" service. While  
the mapping service may only be used and present for emergency call  
routing, these location information services it relies upon have  
multiple uses. Therefore, the  mapping protocol should not require  
addresses in these services to be contorted or transmogrified in any  
way that would reasonably conflict with these other services.   
Thinking this through, perhaps this only applies to civic addresses  
as geo-spatial addresses can be algorithmically converted from one  
format to another.

-andy