Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Preemption

From: "Gunn, Janet NE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:17:53 -0500

Fred,

Some of these are already in my "to do" list (addressing the existing
documents) and I will add the others to that list, to the extent I can (for
instance, I know how GETS "does it", but I don't know how AutoVon "does
it").

Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:02 AM
To: Gunn, Janet NE; Alistair Munro
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Preemption

At 08:44 AM 3/27/2002, Alistair Munro wrote:
>I'm not sure if this thread is in scope - it's very useful but I can't 
>match it to the charter.

I would deem it in scope. We are supposed to make recommendations 
concerning "best practices" (by which we mean "the best we can think of", 
not "the best currently employed"), and set up requirements for any 
protocols that we think may need to be significantly changed from current 
definition or practice. This applies both to telephony and data traffic 
used in an emergency setting.

Janet, it sounds to me like you have a pretty good handle on some of the 
issues here.

(a)Do you feel that they are adequately covered in the framework draft? if 
not, could you propose language to go into it covering the issues?
(b)Do you see specific requirements not being met in industry standard 
protocols? If so, do you feel that either Hal Folts white paper or my draft 
cover the issues, and if so specifically which sections? In not, would you 
be willing to suggest text to cover those issues?

At 11:31 AM 3/27/2002, Gunn, Janet NE wrote:
>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).

Yes. Specifically an example of this has been requested by the Area 
Director - we have been asked to provide requirements for the 
implementation of MLPP in SIP. I would expect that this would include

(a) identifying what problem it solves (such as "it exists in the PSTN and 
we need to be able to carry the signalling across an Internet island, 
whether we actually implement it or not", or "research/experience 
documented at <place> demonstrates that this set of functionality is 
materially helpful in solving <specified> class of problems")
(b) identifying two or more implementation approaches (such as 
authorization us use of an overhead space in GETS and preemption of lower 
priority calls in AutoVon),
(c) identifying what is the minimum necessary to implement the 
functionality in an Internet domain, and
(d) identifying what is necessary to carry the signaling from one 
PSTN/GSM/etc domain to another PSTN/GSM/etc domain across an internet domain

It would also include identification of practices that are not helpful and 
should not be replicated in the Internet, if appropriate.