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

From: "Folts, Harold" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:41:04 -0500

I have been following this lenthy discussion during my travels. I just want
to point out that we need some flexibility with the ETS provisions in the
emerging public networks. We should not be bound by the single precedence
level that GETS has applied. That was all they were able to do or needed at
that time.

I think that it is important that we recognize the potential for multiple
levels (5 have been proposed). I do think that the 911 service should have
the option for its own precidence level. That can be a policy matter in
administering priority levels. As Ken pointed out there is an "SOS"
indication in SIP for 911 calls.

In the civil and commercial world, we should have multiple levels to select
from and then be administered through policy management when the appropriate
authorities decide who gets preference over what.

This is some high level guidance that needs to be considered in developing
technical solutions.

Hal

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Carlberg
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: 3/14/02 5:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Comments on draft-carlberg-ieprep-framework

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

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

---

From: "Stuart (Stu) Goldman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 07:31:36 -0700

Folks,

I also have been following this discussion.

I hesitate to jump in, but perhaps I should share the outcome of the ITU-T SG 11
meeting (Feb. 18- March 1) as a reference point.

At the ITU-T SG 11 we agreed to add an optional NEW PARAMETER to the SS7 and
BICC IAM. If the new parameter is present, it identifies the call as an ETS call
(and since the parameter is not in the national values it would be passed
internationally. )

The absence of the parameter means that the call is not marked as ETS. However,
the call may still have a national CPC value such as NS/EP indicating the
national treatment required, or one of the  normal CPC value indicating
non-emergency treatment.

The advantage of a new parameter is that a call can be marked as
normal,  national emergency (based on CPC), internationally recognized emergency
(new parameter), or both national and international recognized emergency (both
the new parameter and a national CPC value).

The new optional parameter only identifies the call as ETS, but does not
currently identify levels.