Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Preemption/charter

From: "Gunn, Janet NE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:31:31 -0500

Alastair,
 
I think it should be a "given" that we don't want to impose the "worst
practices" of the Telephony world on the Internet.
 
SImilarly, I don't think that this group should get involved in trying to
"fix" the compromises in the Telephony world.
 
But I do think it is useful to identify the FUNCTIONALITY that is available
in the Telephony domain, that is (or may be) used by Emergengy Preparedness
Systems, and to explore what kind of protocol support would be needed  to
provide equivalent functionality in the Internet (or an internet).
 
And I was trying to answer this question: "Are there possibilities for
extensions to MLPP to cover more than one domain? "
 
Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: Alistair Munro [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 12:56 PM
To: Gunn, Janet NE
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Preemption/charter

Hi Janet, 

You describe some very relevant issues that we must take account of at the
point where the Internet "ends" and the PSTN "begins". But I don't know what
we can do about things inside the PSTN (includes GSM, ISDN and all that)
networks - it would be very optimistic to try to overhaul what is (IMHO)
worst practice - nobody's fault, just legacy systems. I hope we can have
some impact nevertheless - it would be great if I could dial 911 from my
US-homed WLAN PDA in London and the emergency services in London would
respond. Try it with your GSM phone sometime... The same MLPP rules may be
accepted but parameters supplied by my PDA won't make sense outside its home
network from a PSTN viewpoint - from what I heard in the SIPPING group, it
would not be impossible in the IP domain. 

Incidentally are you aware of any requirements on IP-based functions that
may be operated *inside* a PSTN-based emergency service, e.g. as a
call-centre? This does seem to be in the scope to me, but I'm happy to be
advised otherwise. 

I would have thought it fell under"detail the specific functions and
technologies needed to provide support for Emergency Preparedness systems in
the Internet. "since Emergency Preparedness Systems (e.g., the GETS WPS, as
well as some military emergency systems) are, or will be, or may be, using
MLPP and eMLPP- like functionality.But if it is out of scope, I'll be glad
to drop it. 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Alistair Munro [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 11:45 AM 
To: Gunn, Janet NE 
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Preemption
I'm not sure if this thread is in scope - it's very useful but I can't match
it to the charter.

Regards, 

Alistair

---

From: Alistair Munro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:53:55 +0000

Hi Janet,

Sorry about the current delay in responding - I'm in Japan right now and
there is a kind of time warp in operation. I'll be back at base next
week and less disloacted.

> practices" of the Telephony world on the Internet.SImilarly, I don't
> think that this group should get involved in trying to "fix" the
> compromises in the Telephony world.

I agree with this - it isn't necessary anyway. Information is always
valuable anyway.

> But I do think it is useful to identify the FUNCTIONALITY that is
> available in the Telephony domain, that is (or may be) used by
> Emergengy Preparedness Systems, and to explore what kind of protocol
> support would be needed  to provide equivalent functionality in the
> Internet (or an internet).And I was trying to answer this question:
> "Are there possibilities for extensions to MLPP to cover more than one
> domain? "

MLPP is one thing and it should be as widely applicable as possible.
I'll have to sit down and think about that - comments/questions later.

I don't know that it is necessary to provide equivalent functionality in
the Internet but there *are* some missing elements. For example, if we
can keep the statistical multiplexing gain of packet mode operation then
preemption (for example, maybe not the best nor the only telephony
feature to be examined) *may* not be so important.

Regards,

Alistair