Subject: [Ecrit] Emergency Services work in TSVWG

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:47:01 +0300

Hi all, 

In a review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-07.txt I got the
impression that the document is not only used for authority-to-authority
communication but also for citizen-to-authority communication.

Here is my review comment:
"
	* I think the document needs to indicate clearly that this
mechanism is supposed to be used for authority-to-authority emergency
services and not for citizen-to-authority/authority-to-citizen emergency
services. 
"	

As a response I received: 

"
I would disagree.  What you are asking for would be best placed in a
separate applicability draft.   For instance, while I mostly agree with
your above assertion, I can also envision an exception in the case of
Japan's 911-like service, where preferential treatment is supported in
their PSTN for these types of many-to-1 call flows.  Hence, more
elaborate discussions on use cases and applicability is really best
served in a different document. 
"

Now, I wonder whether the ECRIT WG is aware of the desire of some folks
in TSVWG to have these types of QoS mechanisms to go into
citizen-to-authority emergency services architecture? We are currently
finishing our architecture document and this document seems to touch
that space without being explicit. 

Thoughts?

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

---

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:19:33 -0400

whoa, slow down a bit!

> that space without being explicit.

Please *carefully* note that in my response on the tsvwg list I said  
"...I can also envision..."
                                                                                                                ^ 
^^
in no way did I state any desire or advocacy, one way or the other, to  
see the proposed extension used for citizen-to-authority emergency  
services.  I'm agnostic in that regard, and I want the cited tsvwg  
draft to remain that way.   And as I also stated above, its up to  
another document outside of the cited tsvwg draft to discuss its  
applicability -- in the context of this note, that would be the ECRIT  
architecture draft.

if pressed on the matter, I would initially advocate a position that  
the draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-07.txt  MAY  be used for citizen- 
to-authority emergency services.  But I haven't followed ECRIT very  
closely of late, so I'll certainly defer to the consensus of others  
actively participating in the ECRIT architecture document.

cheers,

-ken

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:50:38 -0500

Hannes

This isn't an NG-E911/112 style communication. It is a GETS style 
communication (it was more like what IEPREP would deal with). Thus, 
ECRIT isn't chartered for this, and therefore shouldn't worry about it.

James

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:05:48 -0400

Actually, in the Emergency Standards Coordination Workshop, we discussed
this in two contexts.  One was citizen to authority; the other was a
response call from authority to citizen (a 1-1-2/9-1-1/... call back).  We
need a way to signal that the network should give priority to these calls.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
ken carlberg
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:20 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] [Tsvwg] Emergency Services work in TSVWG

whoa, slow down a bit!

 
^ 
^^

cheers,

-ken

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:41:51 +0300

Hi Brian, 

This is a different discussion. You are referring to the discussion
around call marking and not QoS signaling at the network layer using
RSVP. 

Ciao
Hannes

>From: ext Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 29 April, 2008 03:06
>To: 'ken carlberg'; Tschofenig Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
>Subject: RE: [Ecrit] [Tsvwg] Emergency Services work in TSVWG
>
>Actually, in the Emergency Standards Coordination Workshop, we 
>discussed this in two contexts.  One was citizen to authority; 
>the other was a response call from authority to citizen (a 
>1-1-2/9-1-1/... call back).  We need a way to signal that the 
>network should give priority to these calls.
>
>Brian
>
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of ken carlberg
>> impression that the document is not only used for authority-to- 
>> authority communication but also for citizen-to-authority 
>> communication.
>>
>> 	* I think the document needs to indicate clearly that 
>this mechanism 
>> is supposed to be used for authority-to-authority emergency services 
>> and not for citizen-to-authority/authority-to-citizen
>> emergency
>> services.
>> "	
>>
>> Now, I wonder whether the ECRIT WG is aware of the desire of some 
>> folks in TSVWG to have these types of QoS mechanisms to go into 
>Please *carefully* note that in my response on the tsvwg list 
>I said "...I can also envision..."
> 
>^
>^^
>in no way did I state any desire or advocacy, one way or the 
>other, to see the proposed extension used for 
>citizen-to-authority emergency services.  I'm agnostic in that 
>regard, and I want the cited tsvwg  
>another document outside of the cited tsvwg draft to discuss 
>its applicability -- in the context of this note, that would 
>be the ECRIT architecture draft.
>
>if pressed on the matter, I would initially advocate a 
>position that the draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-07.txt  MAY  
>be used for citizen- to-authority emergency services.  But I 
>haven't followed ECRIT very closely of late, so I'll certainly 
>defer to the consensus of others actively participating in the 
>ECRIT architecture document.
>
>cheers,
>
>-ken
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:46:04 +0300

That's what I thought. Maybe one should be clearly stating that since I
could imagine that people reading the title and the content of the draft
wouldn't get that idea. 

I am OK with the TSVWG working on solutions that will not really get
deployed because of the huge deployment problems but I definitely don't
want this to impact any of the work we do in ECRIT. 

Ciao
Hannes 

>From: ext James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 28 April, 2008 17:51
>To: Tschofenig Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Emergency Services work in TSVWG
>
>Hannes
>
>This isn't an NG-E911/112 style communication. It is a GETS 
>style communication (it was more like what IEPREP would deal 
>with). Thus, ECRIT isn't chartered for this, and therefore 
>shouldn't worry about it.
>
>James
>
>>impression that the document is not only used for 
>>authority-to-authority communication but also for 
>citizen-to-authority communication.
>>
>>services and not for citizen-to-authority/authority-to-citizen 
>>emergency services.
>>"
>>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:49:14 +0300

Hi Ken, 

I would be very happy if you could state explicitly that you want to use
the mechanisms in that document for authority-to-authority type of
emergency services rather than for other types of emergency services.

For citizien-to-authority I definitely see a lot of problems and
regarding early warning (authority-to-citizen) we haven't even worked on
the architecture and therefore it is very hard to tell how it would be
used -- we will see in the future. 

Ciao
Hannes
 
>From: ext ken carlberg [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 28 April, 2008 15:20
>To: Tschofenig Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
>                                                 ^ ^^ in no 
>way did I state any desire or advocacy, one way or the other, 
>to see the proposed extension used for citizen-to-authority 
>emergency services.  I'm agnostic in that regard, and I want 
>the cited tsvwg

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:42:53 -0500

At 03:46 AM 4/29/2008, [email-masked] wrote:
>deployed

that's your opinion, but - at least in North America - I think this 
will be deployed.

Are you familiar with either
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-proxy-approaches/ or
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-proxy-proto/
?

This relieves the endpoint from having to support RSVP to get RSVP 
deployed...  this makes things easier

James

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:03:01 -0500

>emergency services rather than for other types of emergency services.

The abstract starts with

         "An Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS)..."
which means a GETS type of service, which clearly isn't C2A based, as 
evidenced by the references within the opening sentence of the Intro

         "[RFC3689] and 
[<http://tools.ietf.org/html/./rfc3690>RFC3690] detail requirements for
         an Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS)..."

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:41:06 +0200

Slightly tongue in cheek, but the point is real.

Hannes, 

Perhaps you should also be clarifying in all the drafts produced by
ECRIT that the communication is citizen to authority, as exactly the
same confusion of terminology appears there.

I understand the taxonomy of emergency calls is generally subdivided as
follows:

-	citizen to authority
-	authority to authority
-	authority to citizen

All of these can be referred to emergency calls.

Regards

Keith 

> On Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:03 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> >I would be very happy if you could state explicitly that you want to 
> >use the mechanisms in that document for 
> authority-to-authority type of 
> which means a GETS type of service, which clearly isn't C2A 
> based, as evidenced by the references within the opening 
> sentence of the Intro
> 
>          "[RFC3689] and
> > >> separate applicability draft.   For instance, while I 
> mostly agree
> > >> with