Subject: [Ecrit] ECRIT Status Update: July 2008

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:58 +0300

* draft-ietf-ecrit-lost, draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery

These two documents are in the RFC Editor queue.

* draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch

This document is waiting for an update by Henning, I believe. I have 
sent a mail to Jon and Henning asking about the status.

* draft-ietf-ecrit-framework and draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp

The received comments are currently being incorporated. It will be 
necessary to determine whether the feedback has been reflected 
appropriately.

The idea is to finish this document soon. A first WGLC has already been 
started. The plan would be to send these two documents to the IESG in 2 
months.

* draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req, draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes

These two documents became working group items recently but they are 
sufficiently complete so that I plan to initiate a WGLC.

* draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-lost-sync

I have asked Henning to re-submit his document as WG item. That will 
follow soon as well.

* What's next?

We have also received a couple of new documents and we have some older 
documents, such as the unauthenticated emergency services work.

The overall question is going to be: What should we do in the group once 
we finished our main documents?

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

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:10:07 -0400

> we finished our main documents?
I will have some small documents to submit once I get -framework and
-phonebcp out.

What I propose is that we go dormant until we get some deployment if the
small stuff gets done quick.  We then make a decision to close or recharter.
Since some deployment should be late next year or so, I think dormancy for a
cycle or two is better than dissolution and reconstitution.

There is also the emergency alert issue, which we have said could be an
expanded ecrit charter or a new wg.

Brian

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:30:08 +0300

Hi Brian, 

Thanks for the quick response. 

>> The overall question is going to be: What should we do in the group 
>> once we finished our main documents?
>I will have some small documents to submit once I get 
>-framework and -phonebcp out.
>
>What I propose is that we go dormant until we get some 
>deployment if the small stuff gets done quick.  We then make a 
>decision to close or recharter.
>Since some deployment should be late next year or so, I think 
>dormancy for a cycle or two is better than dissolution and 
>reconstitution.

By dormant you mean that we just should schedule a slot at IETF
meetings. 

Some folks seem to have the idea of extending LoST beyond the emergency
services usage -- you don't seem to be thrilled by that idea?

>There is also the emergency alert issue, which we have said 
>could be an expanded ecrit charter or a new wg.

Correct. Strictly speaking we don't need to wait to start that work. 

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:16:13 -0400

"Dormant" means list stays active, no meetings, but the work group is not
concluded.

I think registering service URNs for non-emergency use doesn't need a work
group.  I'm not sure what other standardization is needed for, let's say,
urn:service:pizza.pizzahut

I am neutral on whether alert work should be a rechartered ecrit or a new
wg. I think the work is important, and I want to participate in it.  I think
that is an AD call.  The only difference is whether we need to organize a
BOF.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:30 AM
> To: ext Brian Rosen; Hannes Tschofenig; ECRIT
> Subject: RE: [Ecrit] ECRIT Status Update: July 2008
> 
> Hi Brian,
>

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:51:55 -0700

>urn:service:pizza.pizzahut

I think a group focused on the emergency use case is exactly the wrong
place to consider this.  The rats in that rat-hole have been dodged
pretty successfully so far, but I see no prospect of dormancy if that
is on the plate of the group. 

		two cents,
				Ted

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:56:08 +0300

Would you be willing to work on early warning related aspects?

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:04:22 -0700

>Would you be willing to work on early warning related aspects?

That does make sense to me as a continuation.  It's the
"urn:service:pizza.pizzahut" vs. "urn:service:pepsico-brands.foods.pizzahut"
vs. "urn:service:food.delivery.pizzahut" debate cycle that
I think needs other constituents.

Again, just my personal opinion.
				Ted

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:06:33 -0500

> Would you be willing to work on early warning related aspects?

I would think that the ADs would be looking for two things in deciding what 
to do with early warning -

- will this use the same protocol? and

- is this the same group of people doing the work?

I'd expect that feedback on these two points would be most helpful...

Spencer

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:32:08 +0300

Hi Spencer,

we had a chat about the early warning aspects already with the ADs 
(since we already had discussions about this stuff for a while now).

The main issue is that the same folks would work on the topic. How the 
solution will look like is difficult to say.

Ciao
Hannes

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> I would think that the ADs would be looking for two things in deciding 
> what to do with early warning -
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:40:17 -0500

At 03:06 PM 7/8/2008, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>I would think that the ADs would be looking for two things in 
>deciding what to do with early warning -
>

"SIP"

SIP solves everything, right?

but seriously, it will be a different part of SIP (mostly through 
notifications and subscriptions, and not focused very much on INVITEs 
(and related requests))

I think this is fairly obvious to most

>- is this the same group of people doing the work?

a subset (the pure public safety (PSAP folks) would leave, unless 
personally interested), plus new additions (the early warning folks - 
which is a different part of government organization)

I think the vendors would remain largely the same

of course, this is my own opinion

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:44:23 -0500

James and Hannes,

Thanks for the feedback.

Spencer

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:47:49 +0300

> Thanks for the feedback.
..... although our response was quite different.

The main difference is in the fact that there are different views on how 
the overal architecture for early warning would look like. SIP is very 
likely to be part of it but there are more challenges ahead of us...

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:56:22 -0400

With the emergency call work, we had a fairly well-defined and  
cooperative partner (NENA) that provided/s feedback and some  
"customer" credibility. With alerting, it would be helpful to identify  
the customers, unless we intentionally follow the "build and they will/ 
may come" model. (I'm not against that model - it has worked well for  
other IETF standards, but it would be helpful to know beforehand.)

On Jul 8, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> The main issue is that the same folks would work on the topic. How  
> the solution will look like is difficult to say.
>
> Ciao

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:57:41 -0400

> I think needs other constituents.

That debate, if there needs to be one, may well be sufficiently narrow  
to just take place in the general APPS or RAI area (depending on one's  
take of the main customer).
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:06:38 -0400

within the U.S, the "customer" varies.  Initial candidates would be  
emergency management offices of local jurisdictions (ie, counties),  
along with some states that have a more coordinated policy/authority/ 
funding.  the same counties that have installed inverse-911 will most  
likely have an interest (though not necessairly a commitment) to  
extend it to the SIP & IP world.

broader systems that involve various technologies beyond just voice  
are other candidates that will probably express an interest.  see the  
emergency alert system of Washington D.C. as another example.
https://textalert.ema.dc.gov/index.php?CCheck=1

-ken

On Jul 8, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> "customer" credibility. With alerting, it would be helpful to  
> identify the customers, unless we intentionally follow the "build  
> and they will/may come" model. (I'm not against that model - it has  
> worked well for other IETF standards, but it would be helpful to  
> know beforehand.)
>

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:33:00 -0400

I think it's largely the same people.  I suspect that there are aspects of
LoST that would be useful, primarily, if there is a subscription, how do you
find out where to subscribe?  I think that is geographically based in nearly
all circumstances, and thus LoST may be used to find the subscription URI.

Brian

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Spencer Dawkins
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 4:07 PM
> To: 'ECRIT'
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] ECRIT Status Update: July 2008
>