Subject: RE: [Sipping] Comment on draft-schulzrinne-sipping-sos-01.txt

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:56:26 -0500

I propose we leave it as is.

1) You don't normally type it.  Your UA has some kind of API that invokes an

emergency call that maps to the URI.  It doesn't matter what it is.  

2) We can argue endlessly on what the best word is.  It doesn't have to be
optimized.

3) sos is international, albeit in a roman alphabet.  Many other choices
aren't.

Please, can we direct our energies elsewhere and get this out?

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Audet [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:39 PM
To: 'Henning Schulzrinne'; 'Christian Huitema'
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Comment on draft-schulzrinne-sipping-sos-01.txt

Anything wrong with "emergency"? 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 12:01 
To: Christian Huitema 
Cc: [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Comment on draft-schulzrinne-sipping-sos-01.txt 

Christian: 
I believe that is a common, but incorrect, perception. Merriam-Webster 
defines SOS as: 
--- begin quote --- 
Pronunciation: "es-(")O-'es 
Function: noun 
Date: 1910 
1 : an internationally recognized signal of distress in radio code · · · 
- - - · · · used especially by ships calling for help 
2 : a call or request for help or rescue 
--- end quote --- 
Indeed, http://www.uselessknowledge.com/word/sos.shtml addresses your 
concern head-on. If you disagree, please provide a credible primary 
source that refutes the article. The article says: 
"The international morse code distress signal, S.O.S., is another "word" 
with a false acronymic origin. S.O.S. does not stand for Save Our Souls, 
Save Our Ship, Stop Other Signals, Sure Of Sinking, or any other phrase. 
S.O.S. was chosen as the universal distress signal by the International 
Radio Telegraph Convention of July 1908 because this combination of 
letters, three dots followed by three dashes followed by three dots 
(...---...), was easy to send and easily recognized. The letters 
themselves are meaningless. 
The first recorded mention of the false acronymic origin is in reference 
to the Titanic sinking of 1912, which may account for its wide spread 
and endurance." 
Christian Huitema wrote: 
> 
> The draft proposes the definition of a generic "distress signal" address
in 
> SIP domains. While this is a good idea, I believe the specific choice of
the 
> word "sos" is poor. This word comes from a religious tradition (save our 
> souls) that is specific to some cultures. Choosing "mayday" would be more
in 
> accordance with international practice. 
> 
> -- Christian Huitema 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping 
> This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP 
> Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip 
> Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP 

_______________________________________________ 
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping 
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP 
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip 
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP 

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: "Francois Audet"<[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:59:32 -0800

Looks good to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 12:56
To: Audet, Francois [SC2:4K02:EXCH]; 'Henning Schulzrinne'; 'Christian
Huitema'
Cc: [email-masked]'

Brian

-----Original Message----- 
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 12:01 
To: Christian Huitema 
Cc: [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Comment on draft-schulzrinne-sipping-sos-01.txt 

Christian: 
--- end quote --- 
in 
the 
in

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:31:28 EST

In a message dated 3/18/2002 3:52:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> - most of them are much longer than 'sos'. I can type out 'sos' on a
> 12-button keypad, but imagine trying to type out 'emergency'.
> 

In a message dated 3/18/2002 9:33:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> No, it typically won't be typed, but I certainly would want to make it
> possible to do so, e.g., on PC-based software clients. Not all clients
> will have a "911" or "112" button.
> 

Sorry, if the draft is based on the presumption that the user of a "SIP 
phone" types "SOS" or anything else, then we're all barking up the wrong 
tree. In the US, the user dials "9-1-1" and SIP isn't going to change that 
requirement. I don't expect anyone to have a "911" button, but they all have 
a "9" and a "1" botton (or the equivalent on the screen to click). Yes, some 
terminal could also provide an emergency icon to click or a special emergency 
button, but just picking up a handset and dialing "911" must still work. I 
don't expect anyone to ever type in the SIP message text string. At least, 
nothing in this service definition should be based on that possibility, even 
though some of us might be able to figure it out.

The "SOS" must be viewed as a protocol element that the user doesn't see, so 
it can be anything, i.e., it doesn't need to be "recognizable" to everyone.

Mike Pierce

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:37:34 EST

It seems to me that there is a lot of discussion of the details of the 
protocol (format of a url to indicate emergency call) and what proxies might 
do, but there is not a consistant agreement or understanding of what the 
requirements are to provide "911" type service in various environments.

For examples, comments such as:
> It's not a telephone number.

> The goal for the sos mechanism is that I can predict that the 'sos' key is 
going
> to work as long as it works at home and as long as I can send a SIP request 
to
> my home domain.

seem to imply a different set of requirements than I believe exist.

I think that the discussion in SIPPING needs to first concentrate on defining 
the requirements, not how the url will be formated or how namespaces are 
created.

I'd suggest things like:

The end user must be able to "dial" the locally recognized emergency number 
(911 in the US) even if the terminal has a special "SOS" button.
The user may initiate an emergency call from any terminal that is 
operational, without any requirement to "log on" or "authenticate" their 
identity.
The call will be routed to the designated emergency center based on the 
identification of the calling device, not of the person.

Comments?

Mike Pierce

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:03:54 -0500

This is probably not specifically germane to SIP but specific 911 buttons
on devices which have been mentioned several times in discussions in this
forum are a very bad idea. It is very easy to mistakenly press a button and
trigger an  emergency reponse Which given today's climate of zero tolerance
can have very serious consequences.

[email-masked]@ietf.org on 03/25/2002 11:37:34 AM

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   [email-masked]
cc:

It seems to me that there is a lot of discussion of the details of the
protocol (format of a url to indicate emergency call) and what proxies
might do, but there is not a consistant agreement or understanding of what
the requirements are to provide "911" type service in various environments.

> The goal for the sos mechanism is that I can predict that the 'sos' key
is going
> to work as long as it works at home and as long as I can send a SIP
request to

I think that the discussion in SIPPING needs to first concentrate on
defining the requirements, not how the url will be formated or how
namespaces are created.

I'd suggest things like:

Comments?

Mike Pierce

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:50:16 EST

> can have very serious consequences.

Yes, I always thought this was a bad idea, too, like progamming a speed dial 
button on your phone to dial "911" which you can hit by mistake. However, we 
all realize that nothing done here can prevent such a button, or other means 
like a voice recognition for "help, I've fallen..."

But my point is to make sure that we all have a common view that, independent 
of any such button or specialized feature in an implemenation, the user must 
be able to follow exactly what the local telephone book says. That is to dial 
911 in most areas of the US, but even that isn't universal (in the US). 
Remember that a "phone" in a PBX might have to dial 9 - 911.

The real issue here, which also relates to a lot of other areas, is how does 
the end device ("telephone") know the local dialing plan? Has there even been 
a statement made and agreed that it must know it?

Mike

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:09:47 EST

In a message dated 3/25/02 2:12:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> We don't specify things local to a single device.
> Therefore, statements about what a user does to get
> an emergency call out are not appropriate requirements.
> The current draft does not deal with exactly how
> an emergency call is routed, but only how it
> is specified.  Routing will be the subject of
> additional drafts.
> 
> The requirement is that any element be able to simply
> generate and recognize an emergency call, especially
> on devices with minimal SIP compatibility.  
> 
> Since basic SIP does not require any kind of registration to 
> send an outgoing call, it's only networks that try to
> add additional meaning to registration that could get
> them into trouble with emergency calls.  Even 3GPP
> recognizes this, and does not need registration to
> place an emergency call.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 

Yes, I understand that we don't "specify" the operations local to a single 
device, but the presumed operation of devices can't be ignored, and I didn't 
initiate the references to a "911" button. Since the ongoing discussion of 
SOS must presume that the local device somehow knows to send this special url 
(rather that the regular one for plain old calls), I think it is important to 
consider how the local device does this. Once it is accepted that the user 
must be able to "dial" 911, which I don't think is agreed now, then it 
reveals the functional requirement for the local device to understand this 
part of the local dialing plan. This might mean there is a big hole in 
actually deploying SIP.

I was not referring to "routing".

It's unknown to me how a device can "simply generate and recognize an 
emergency call" and be oblivious to the local dialing plan at the same time. 
Have I missed the functionality existing to inform the device of the dialing 
plan?

Mike

---

From: Andrew Allen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:31:07 -0500

I can't comment for the fixed network - but the way it works in GSM today
and will work in 3GPP networks in the future is that well known emergency
numbers (911, 999, 112, etc) are stored on the SIM card (smartcard). Thus in
the GSM mobile world the mobile can determine it is an emergency number
based on this table. This table can also be added to by the local operator
to also contain any locally used numbers. 
 
This is certainly not an obstacle to deployment of SIP in 3GPP networks.
 
Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 3:10 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Comment on draft-schulzrinne-sipping-sos-01.txt

Brian 

Yes, I understand that we don't "specify" the operations local to a single
device, but the presumed operation of devices can't be ignored, and I didn't
initiate the references to a "911" button. Since the ongoing discussion of
SOS must presume that the local device somehow knows to send this special
url (rather that the regular one for plain old calls), I think it is
important to consider how the local device does this. Once it is accepted
that the user must be able to "dial" 911, which I don't think is agreed now,
then it reveals the functional requirement for the local device to
understand this part of the local dialing plan. This might mean there is a
big hole in actually deploying SIP. 

Mike

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:12:08 +0100

in what document of 3GPP is specified this???

-----Original Message-----
From:	"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> on behalf of	"Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Sent:	Monday, March 25, 2002 8:11 PM
To:	"[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject:	RE: [Sipping] Comment on draft-schulzrinne-sipping-sos-01.txt

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Comment on draft-schulzrinne-sipping-sos-01.txt

going 
request to 

I'd suggest things like: 

Comments? 

Mike Pierce

---

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:17:30 -0500

All,

I would suggest that some key requirements are:

an indication that the call is an emergency call
    (with possible distinctions in kinds of emergencies
     to aid in routing to police, fire, or paramedics)
   (URI stuff already discussed)

the geographic location of the caller (which might be value unknown)
    (geographic parameter)

network be able to inform the caller of the correct local emergency number
    (based on analysis of the geographic data with default to local 
configuration)
    (new response values?)

network be able to forward the call (nothing new?)
caller be able to re-originate the call (nothing new?)

What I find interesting is that this very quickly devolves into specifying 
the service (which I thought was anathema) and possibly implementation.

Mike

At 04:31 PM 3/25/2002 -0500, Andrew Allen wrote:
>numbers (911, 999, 112, etc) are stored on the SIM card (smartcard). Thus 
>in the GSM mobile world the mobile can determine it is an emergency number 
>device, but the presumed operation of devices can't be ignored, and I 
>didn't initiate the references to a "911" button. Since the ongoing 
>discussion of SOS must presume that the local device somehow knows to send 
>this special url (rather that the regular one for plain old calls), I 
>think it is important to consider how the local device does this. Once it 
>is accepted that the user must be able to "dial" 911, which I don't think 
>is agreed now, then it reveals the functional requirement for the local 
>device to understand this part of the local dialing plan. This might mean 
>there is a big hole in actually deploying SIP.
>
>emergency call" and be oblivious to the local dialing plan at the same 
>time. Have I missed the functionality existing to inform the device of the 
>dialing plan?
>
>Mike

---

From: "Drage, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:09:33 -0000

3GPP TS 22.101 clause 9.1

Keith

Keith Drage
Lucent Technologies
Tel: +44 1793 776249
Email: [email-masked]

> ----------
> From: 	[email-masked][SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	26 March 2002 9:12
> To: 	[email-masked]; Rosen, Brian
> might
> is