Subject: Re: [sipping] comment on draft-polk-sipping-location-requirements -01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:51:19 EST

In a message dated 12/18/2003 11:16:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> >Sounds good, but I still don't see how the operator (emergency service 
> >bureau) can make the decision between two conflicting pieces of 
> >information. What specifically can the proxy add to allow this decision to 
> >be made?
> 
> You don't decide, you pass on both pieces of information along with an 
> indication of the source.
> 

I seriously doubt that this would be acceptable to the authorities in the US. 
We need NENA (in the US), and similar organizations in other countries, to 
tell the IETF what the requirements are. Then the IETF can figure out how to do 
it.

Note that a joint press release and 6-point agreement between the VON 
Coalition and NENA on Dec 1 calls for "(c) providing location of caller". It doesn't 
say "providing several possible locations of caller from which the PSAP can 
choose which one it thinks is correct".

Mike

---

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:05:26 -0500

At 02:51 PM 12/18/2003 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>I seriously doubt that this would be acceptable to the authorities in the 
>US. We need NENA (in the US), and similar organizations in other 
>countries, to tell the IETF what the requirements are. Then the IETF can 
>figure out how to do it.
>
>Coalition and NENA on Dec 1 calls for "(c) providing location of caller". 
>It doesn't say "providing several possible locations of caller from which 
>the PSAP can choose which one it thinks is correct".

It doesn't say you can't provide more than one type of measurement, does it?

What liability would a carrier assume if the handset using GPS provided a 
location to 10 meters, and that got over-ridden by a carrier network using 
TOA providing an accuracy of 100 meters, and the ambulance arrives too late?

Also, I wouldn't want to base a solution an an assumption that all parts of 
the network are operated by a single SP.

Mike

>Mike

_______________________________________________
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: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:36:48 -0500

You're implying that NENA is the only game in town.  What about the rest 
of the world?

[email-masked] wrote:

> I seriously doubt that this would be acceptable to the authorities in 
> the US. We need NENA (in the US), and similar organizations in other 
> Coalition and NENA on Dec 1 calls for "(c) providing location of 
> caller". It doesn't say "providing several possible locations of caller 
> from which the PSAP can choose which one it thinks is correct".
> 
> Mike