Subject: [Ecrit] Why an applicability statement to framework and BCP is not required

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:21:14 -0500

I agree with the people that have said this debate is farcical.

Cellular carriers can and do market their 3G services as wireless
broadband. In a number of cases, and I can't believe that it is only
here, services provide open Internet connectivity allowing access to
independent voice service providers (not IMS). When these services are
sold in this manner, they are still cellular, but the carrier is really
just an ISP and the ECRIT model for emergency calling is as applicable
to them as it is for any DSL ISP. Any specific "cellular" emergency call
procedures are not invoked, the carrier by the very nature of the
service they are selling has broken the access-to-voice-service link.
This makes the ECRIT architecture applicable. 

The result is that no applicability statement is required in the ECRIT
documents. Indeed, unless specific statements in the 3GPP specifications
are made to say that open Internet services SHALL NOT be provided
through these technologies I can't see how ECRIT is not applicable to
cellular. I can't see 3GPP adding such a statement, and I think that
their primary customers would go up in arms if they did. I propose that
the applicability statement resolution be dropped unless the proponents
of these applicability statements can stand up and say that open
Internet services over 3GPP networks don't happen now and will not
happen in the future or they can point us to a 3GPP specification that
describes how a totally decoupled access and voice service can deliver
an emergency call to the correct PSAP.

Cheers

James

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:27:14 -0700

This argument is pretty persuasive.  Could someone who wants to add 
something propose a paragraph and explain why the below doesn't apply? 
If no such text is forthcoming, ISTM that we should go ahead with the 
document as it is.
--Richard

Winterbottom, James wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:52:49 -0700

>If no such text is forthcoming, ISTM that we should go ahead with the

Actually, the argument James puts forward below seems pretty much
the same as he put forward in late February, and which Stephen
answered then (Feb 26th, at least as it arrived to me).

It is pretty obvious that we're not going to get to full or measurable rough
consensus on this, and I thought Brian's text was a very useful step in getting
us to a working compromise.  Going back over discussions that led us to the
conclusion that we weren't going to get consensus doesn't seem likely to move
us forward much.

I can't speak for anyone else, but moving forward with text discussions
to see if there is a compromise statement here seems more likely to get
us out of these weeds.

Two cents,
			Ted

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:05:01 -0500

Actually Ted I don't recall see an explicit reference to a 3GPP specification that address the problem I have described below. Indeed my recollection, admittedly it has been some time since I have looked at the 3GPP solution in detail, was that this deployment is deemed out of scope. That is, 3GPP do not have a solution for it, but recognize it as being an issue. ECRIT fills this hole. Applicability to only packet deployments is not in question I hope, consequently how that packet is provided is also, I hope, not an issue, otherwise need to consider applicability to every other type of physical access network. Indeed this same argument can be posed for every IETF protocol or framework document.

If we have to have an applicability statement, and I don't think we do, then it should be even more simple than what has been currently proposed. 

"This document applies to all devices and networks that participate in Internet emergency calling".

This wording has been carefully chosen to say Internet. In all the scenarios that Stephen has raised he is describing very specific IMS environments, and while these may be IP, they are not Internet, they are walled gardens, and in these you can do what ever you want. If 3G operators want to provide open Internet connectivity then these specifications do apply to them and they need to adhere to them.

Cheers
James

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Hardie [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wed 3/25/2009 4:52 PM
To: Richard Barnes; Winterbottom, James
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Why an applicability statement to framework and BCP is  not	required

Two cents,
			Ted

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:28:40 -0700

> to see if there is a compromise statement here seems more likely to get

Sorry, that was meant to be the more important thrust of my message.

Ted, you've been one of the people arguing that text is needed -- could 
you propose some?

--Richard

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:29:13 -0700

>"This document applies to all devices and networks that participate in Internet emergency calling".

That's a pretty major revision of Framework, Section 4.  That claims to consider all
private networks using IP.  See:

   Devices that create media sessions and exchange audio, video and/or
   text, and have the capability to establish sessions to a wide variety
   of addresses, and communicate over private IP networks or the
   Internet, should support emergency calls.

If you are meeting that remit, you need to acknowledge that other
functional entities exist and are currently doing their best to get
the emergency calls to their responders.  If you want to limit
this to something that passes *your* view of what constitutes
the Internet, then we have a bigger problem.

Again, just speaking for myself,
				Ted

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:33:10 -0700

>Ted, you've been one of the people arguing that text is needed -- could

I personally was fine with the direction of discussion that arose
out of Brian's text.  But again, I am not speaking for anyone else.

			regards,
				Ted

---

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:36:58 -0700

>> I can't speak for anyone else, but moving forward with text 
>> discussions to see if there is a compromise statement here 
>seems more 
>> likely to get us out of these weeds.

Ted, isn't that essentially saying something like: 
"If you (James) stop arguing against the ideas we (Ted, Stephen, Randy) have
in mind we could get much faster to the result we like. 
"

I think that James asks fair questions since he tries to understand what you
(and your co-workers) are unhappy about. This is particularly a fair
question given that you have been participating in the ECRIT working group
for a long time (and co-author one of the core documents) and have not
raised your concerns earlier. 

Ciao
Hannes

>Ted, you've been one of the people arguing that text is needed 
>-- could you propose some?
>
>--Richard
>
>
>> 
>> Two cents,
>> 			Ted
>> 
>>>> independent voice service providers (not IMS). When these services 
>>>> are sold in this manner, they are still cellular, but the 
>carrier is 
>>>> really just an ISP and the ECRIT model for emergency calling is as 
>>>> applicable to them as it is for any DSL ISP. Any specific 
>"cellular" 
>>>> emergency call procedures are not invoked, the carrier by the very 
>>>> nature of the service they are selling has broken the 
>access-to-voice-service link.
>>>> The result is that no applicability statement is required in the 
>>>> ECRIT documents. Indeed, unless specific statements in the 3GPP 
>>>> specifications are made to say that open Internet services 
>SHALL NOT 
>>>> be provided through these technologies I can't see how 
>ECRIT is not 
>>>> applicable to cellular. I can't see 3GPP adding such a statement, 
>>>> and I think that their primary customers would go up in 
>arms if they 
>>>> did. I propose that the applicability statement resolution be 
>>>> dropped unless the proponents of these applicability 
>statements can 
>>>> stand up and say that open Internet services over 3GPP networks 
>>>> don't happen now and will not happen in the future or they 
>can point 
>>>> us to a 3GPP specification that describes how a totally decoupled 
>>>> access and voice service can deliver an emergency call to 
>the correct PSAP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ---------------------------- This message is for the designated 
>>>> recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or 
>otherwise 
>>>> private information.
>>>> immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of this 
>>>> email is prohibited.
>>>>

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:51:08 -0500

This has nothing what-so-ever to do with what I think the Internet is or
is not. You, Stephen, Randy and to some extent Keith have argued that
3GPP is somehow special and exempt from these specifications because it
can, in some circumstances, provide its own emergency calling
procedures. 

I have highlighted, more than once, that 3G networks are also deployed
as broadband services in the same way that other ISP services are
provided and that these should be subject to the ECRIT specifications.
The argument that 3GPP is somehow "special" in these cases does not
apply.

To your comment on section 4, it says "should", not must, so the text is
a recommendation and not a mandate, as a manufacturer of 3G terminal
equipment Qualcomm is free to ignore this advice.

The only rationale I can see for continuing to push for these
applicability statements is to provide certain companies with a clear
reference to say to operators and other standards bodies, "look, ECRIT
doesn't apply here it says so", something that I think the vast majority
of people on this list do not agree with!

Cheers
James

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Hardie [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2009 10:29 AM
To: Winterbottom, James; Richard Barnes
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Why an applicability statement to framework and BCP
is not required

At 3:05 PM -0700 3/25/09, Winterbottom, James wrote:
>Actually Ted I don't recall see an explicit reference to a 3GPP
specification that address the problem I have described below. Indeed my
recollection, admittedly it has been some time since I have looked at
the 3GPP solution in detail, was that this deployment is deemed out of
scope. That is, 3GPP do not have a solution for it, but recognize it as
being an issue. ECRIT fills this hole. Applicability to only packet
deployments is not in question I hope, consequently how that packet is
provided is also, I hope, not an issue, otherwise need to consider
applicability to every other type of physical access network. Indeed
this same argument can be posed for every IETF protocol or framework
document.
>
>If we have to have an applicability statement, and I don't think we do,
then it should be even more simple than what has been currently
proposed.
>"This document applies to all devices and networks that participate in
Internet emergency calling".

That's a pretty major revision of Framework, Section 4.  That claims to
consider all
private networks using IP.  See:

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 05:45:03 +0100

>Internet emergency calling".

I think this is a good clarification. ietf defines 'internet emergency calling', 3gpp and other similar SDOs define 'IMS emergency calling'. They are not, and they do not have to be the same thing.

On the other hand, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-08.txt is a collection of requirements, thus a better title for it would be 'Requirements for Internet Emergency Calling' and an Intended Status of Standards Track instead of BCP.

And the above applicability statement could say:
"This document is a collection of requirements for devices and networks that participate in Internet Emergency Calling"

- gabor

  >From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
  >ext Winterbottom, James
  >Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:05 PM
  >To: Ted Hardie; Richard Barnes
  >Cc: [email-masked]
  >recollection, admittedly it has been some time since I have looked at the
  >3GPP solution in detail, was that this deployment is deemed out of scope.
  >That is, 3GPP do not have a solution for it, but recognize it as being an
  >issue. ECRIT fills this hole. Applicability to only packet deployments is
  >not in question I hope, consequently how that packet is provided is also,
  >I hope, not an issue, otherwise need to consider applicability to every
  >other type of physical access network. Indeed this same argument can be
  >posed for every IETF protocol or framework document.
  >
  >then it should be even more simple than what has been currently proposed.
  >
  >This wording has been carefully chosen to say Internet. In all the
  >scenarios that Stephen has raised he is describing very specific IMS
  >environments, and while these may be IP, they are not Internet, they are
  >walled gardens, and in these you can do what ever you want. If 3G
  >operators want to provide open Internet connectivity then these
  >specifications do apply to them and they need to adhere to them.
  >
  >Cheers
  >James
  >
  >
  >