Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Comments on draft-carlberg-ieprep-framework

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:54:55 EST

In a message dated 3/13/02 12:01:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 
> there isn't much difference between the currently posted version and
> the one listed above.  so no need to be worried about going through it
> with a fine tooth comb.  from memory, the basic changes were:
> 
>   o proposing a single value for an IEPS NameSpace defined in the 
>     SIP Resource Header draft
> 

I don't understand this change. I thought it had been agreed that there was a 
need to distinguish between authorized emergency calls and public emergency 
calls (e.g., 911) within a single network. Aren't both of these being 
supported, just as they are in the telephone network today?

Also, as I had commented earlier, there should be a value defined in the set 
for "normal", even if the value is never included in signaling. Otherwise, 
there is really no good way to describe the action to take when no value is 
present.

See you all in Minneapolis.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:17:13 +0000

hi,

> I don't understand this change. I thought it had been agreed that there 
> was a need to distinguish between authorized emergency calls and public 
> emergency calls (e.g., 911) within a single network. Aren't both of
> these being supported, just as they are in the telephone network today? 

before the SIP Resource Header draft came out, I thought it would be 
beneficial to distinguish 911-type calls from GETS-type calls.

however, in a recent exchange with Henning and James, they both expressed 
a desire not to have an additional marking of these types of calls.  one
reason was because the "sos@" address would already distinguish the SIP 
message as being a 911-type message.  their position was that the 
additional header would be redundant.

so for IEPS, this leaves us with just a GETS-type "authorized-emergency" 
call and a "normal" call.  (skipping the fact that there could be other 
types of NameSpace defined calls.)  and with protocol design/specification,
one always wants to take a minimal/non-redundant position on things.  by
having a "normal" value in the IEPS NameSpace in addition to the 
"authorized-emergency" to me seems redundant to a SIP message without
the Resource Header field.  so i took the "normal" value out.

> Also, as I had commented earlier, there should be a value defined in the
> set for "normal", even if the value is never included in signaling. 
> Otherwise, there is really no good way to describe the action to take
> when no value is present. 

i can see sympathize with having a "normal" or default value if the
Resource Header would contain two or more values that distinguish calls
as being one other than Normal.  but if one is just introducing a single
value that acts as a binary decision of normal/non-normal, then I'm
not convinced that an additional "normal" value is needed.

-ken

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