Subject: [Ecrit] Definition of "emergency identifier"

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:39:44 -0500

draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-05 has the following definition for 
"emergency identifier":

    Emergency identifier: The numerical and/or text identifier which is
       supplied by a user or a user device, which identifies the call as
       an emergency call and is translated into an emergency address,
       useful for call routing and completion of the emergency call.

The problem I see here is the phrase "is translated into". That would be 
true for a URN in the Request-URI, but doesn't work for one in the To: 
header field. My first suggestion is to terminate the definition after 
"... which identifies the call as an emergency call." The alternative is 
to go on to say "... and triggers emergency call routing procedures 
possibly including mapping of the caller's location to an emergency 
address.".

Tom Taylor

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

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:59:15 -0500

This is part of the problem, but not the whole problem.

I agree we need to have some kind of marking that identifies an emergency
call.  I think this marking has to be applied at any point where an entity
recognizes that it is an emergency call.  The point many folks have missed
is that the marking has to stay on the call all the way to the UAS.

We also need a marking that tells us that the call has been location routed.

At one point, the way this worked was a call was marked urn:service:sos
until it was location routed, but that marking is lost after it was.  I
think we need to know, after it's location routed, that it's (still) an
emergency call.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom-PT Taylor [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:40 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ecrit] Definition of "emergency identifier"

Tom Taylor

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 13:09:27 -0500

In an earlier message in this thread, I had made two proposals:

(1) Accept-Contact: *;sip.service="urn:service:sos.marine"

[This was in sipping-sos.]

(2) Resource-Priority (to indicate the need for priority)

I'm happy to put (1) back into the service URN draft if this is 
considered an acceptable solution to the marking problem. I think it 
fits the caller preferences processing model pretty well.

---

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 13:28:19 -0500

I absolutely agree with the first requirement -- I raised that issue 
myself. I also raised the point that the marker may have to be present 
on signalling messages subsequent to the INVITE.

That said, do people agree with my proposal to truncate the definition 
of emergency marking after the words: "... which identifies the call as 
an emergency call."