Subject: [Ieprep] "IEPREP" priority value for Resource-Priority

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:09:03 -0600

It has been suggested to add a namespace for GETS-like services to the
SIP Resource-Priority header. There are at least two solutions:

- Have a single namespace that covers all national GETS-like schemes,
called (for my lack of imagination) something like "emergency". The
namespace would have one value only, i.e., it's either

Resource-Priority: emergency

or no header (meaning regular call).

This does not preclude that countries could define their own namespace
if they don't want to use the generic name.

(2) Define name spaces for each national or regional emergency
telecommunication preference system. Example:

Resource-Priority: GETS

I don't see much difference, except that authorization is likely to be
specific to each system, so that it may be easier to explicitly indicate
the system to be used.

Suggestions or alternatives are appreciated.

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

---

From: Rob Freilich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:49:09 -0600

Henning,

It might be better for each country to define their own namespace since this
could be used as part of the key fields for authentication.  GETS uses a 10
digit PIN code, if I remember correctly.  Other similar services might use a
difference scheme altogether for authentication.  The national identifier
from the Resource-Priority header plus the code could be used in-conjunction
for authentication.  One party identifies the treatment and the other part
the actual code to authenticate.

Regards,

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Henning Schulzrinne
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:09 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ieprep] "IEPREP" priority value for Resource-Priority

Resource-Priority: GETS

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:50:29 -0600

That was my preference as well. If any of the participants would like to
include their national scheme in the draft, please let me know.

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:11:37 -0600

>> the actual code to authenticate.

Hal Folts at NCS was on a path to have IEPREP be international and call the
service "ECS" for "Emergency Communications System". I don't know where that
goal stands or if that this should be used as a namespace or was agreed upon by
each region/country, or if it needs to necessarily be. 

I have a concern *not* that each country or continent uses it's own namespace,
but in including all of them in this one ID; or is that a non-issue (and list
as many as we can know about)? It seems like listing all these different
namespace's might ought to be from within an IEPREP WG doc, which the
Resource-Priority ID isn't as wasn't planned on becoming.

>> Rob
*************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they are
willing to allow for others"

James M. Polk
Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike 
Richardson, TX  75082 USA
w) 972.813.5208
f)  972.813.5280
www.cisco.com

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:16:09 +0000

I agree with James.  GETS is a service that uses the T1.631 High
Probability of Completion (HPC) standard that specifies  the NS/EP
code point for IAM messages.  it is this single binary code point that
we should have a corresponding value in a NameSpace for the R-P field.
other countries that use the National Security / Emergency Preparedness
(NS/EP) value is an orthogonal issue.

Internatioanl Emergency Preparedness Scheme (IEPS) is a term used in ITU
E.106, and is an attempt to extend the NS/EP to an international
perspective.  later, Hal has advocated a more general term of ECS. if
folks feel uncomfortable with the use of "IEPS" as a namespace, we could
use "HPC", or "NEPS" (national emergency preparedness scheme)....but i'd
like to give this more thought after i read the recent SG11 contribution
next week.

also, i'd strongly prefer to have the priority value associated with
the new NameSpace use the term "authorized-emergency", so that others
do not confuse the value with 911-type of emergency. (yes, i know that
there are no plans for a 911-type namespace for the R-P field, but
i want people to keep in mind the 'authorized' perspective.)

-ken

==============================================================
From:    "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>

James M. Polk
Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:59:15 -0600

Given your description, I suspect that it's best to then defer this
until the issue settles down. Givent that the R-P draft has a
well-defined (I hope...) extension and registration mechanism, we can
register namespaces at any time, either national ones or a global ECS
scheme.

---

From: "Stuart (Stu) Goldman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 04:06:44 -0700

Ken,

I believe that Hal is now using the term ETS (Emergency Telecommunications Service)
rather than ECS.

At the ITU-T SG 11 meeting last month we added a new, optional parameter to the SS7
( and BICC) IAM message in the internationally defined range of values indicating
that it was an emergency service call.

Because this is a different mechanism than the Calling Party's Category in the same
SS7 IAM message, a given call can be:

   * an ordinary call
   * a nationally defined emergency call based on the national value of the CPC,
     such as NS/EP in the US, indicating a GETS HPC call
   *  an internationally recognized emergency call based on the new SS7 IAM
     parameter
   * a call that is both a nationally defined emergency call based on the national
     value of the CPC, such as NS/EP in the US, indicating a GETS HPC call, and an
     internationally recognized emergency call based on the new SS7 IAM parameter

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:24:25 -0600

At 04:06 AM 3/25/2002 -0700, Stuart (Stu) Goldman wrote: 
>
> Ken, 
>
> I believe that Hal is now using the term ETS (Emergency Telecommunications
> Service) rather than ECS. 

I have an issue with this change in view of the IEPREP Charter addressing more
than Voice (ie Telecommunications) -- and of the two then prefer ECS (which
could mean anything from Voice to IM to FTP to HTTP to whatever IAA uses)

James M. Polk
Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems