Subject: E911 and appliances

From: Andrew Daviel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 02:59:23 -0700 (PDT)

There has been a fair amount of discussion of (US)  E911 mandated action
etc. and I wondered, broadly, how much of this really applied to the
Internet which is what I assume this WG is about.

For instance, is any mobile device with voice capability (a laptop
with a microphone ??) deemed to be a cellphone and fall under the E911
aegis, or are we just assuming convergence and assuming that future
3G devices will all be Internet-capable and do VoIP or something ?

I don't have a PDA myself so don't have personal experience, but I kind of
think that something big enough to type on easily and to display a
reasonable amount of text or graphics (like a map) isn't going to fit in a
case the size of a phone, so that there will be wireless internet devices
that are not phones and would not need to have any capability to connect
to a designated national emergency service, (or whatever one calls
generic 911).

I may be totally wrong - maybe we'll have voice-activated sunglasses with
a megapixel heads-up display that does everything, e.g. Steve Mann's
system at eyetap.org.

(I saw some Nokia 3G prototypes on a TV show recently -all with
built-in video cameras)

-- 
Andrew Daviel

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:47:42 -0700

> etc. and I wondered, broadly, how much of this really applied to the

I would be curious as to what other countries are doing. From all I can
tell, Europe mirrors the US almost exactly in its requirements, but I
haven't been able to find good information about Asia and Australia.

> 3G devices will all be Internet-capable and do VoIP or something ?

Among other things, third-generation wireless devices (3G, R5) will
carry IP all the way to the end system (handheld). Thus, the owner of
such a device will have the reasonable expectation that things work at
least as well as the existing 1G/2G devices.

Also, even if you ignore traditional PCs as sources of emergency calls,
there are now on the order of a million IP phones shipped per year,
mostly for large enterprises at this point. Various companies are
trialing VoIP for broadband (DSL and cable). Due to various technical
and financial hurdles, this so far hasn't been terribly successful, but
this could reach large numbers very quickly. Currently, these devices
are sold as "second line" devices, i.e., the carrier tells customers
that they should maintain their analog line, primarily for "lifeline"
service during power outages and for 911. This is clearly not a
long-term proposition unless we perceive of the Internet as always being
some kind of second-class infrastructure suitable only for
"recreational" use.

> think that something big enough to type on easily and to display a

The lack of a keyboard doesn't seem to interfere with the billion+ SMS
messages being sent each year...

> to a designated national emergency service, (or whatever one calls

Given that there are already 2G phones that incorporate PDAs (Kyocera
and others make them), the distinction will become largely academic.

> (I saw some Nokia 3G prototypes on a TV show recently -all with

If you're interested in 911 issues, you might take a look at
draft-schulzrinne-sip-911-01.txt

In terms of the discussion here, I suspect that we'll see more choices
as to how locations are being reported. However, given that people
dialing 911 are often not exactly in the clearest state of mind, I have
a hard time picturing a device that requires a user to make detailed
choices in a scroll-down menu as to the location accuracy while the
house is on fire.

This becomes a protocol issue only if the location information is
provided by "the network" instead of the end system. In the current
mobile systems, we have both approaches, with triangulation and such for
some systems and (typically, assisted) GPS for others. The latter tends
to be more precise, but also more expensive. If location is provided by
the end system, location privacy becomes a user interface issue, not
something we typically worry about in the IETF. We certainly can't
mandate a user interface. One would hope that we'll see different
approaches for different users, e.g., a simpler interface for phones
meant for children and those with limited cognitive capacity, with a
more sophisticated set of choices, on a per-device or per-call basis,
for others.

---

From: Adam Shostack <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:38:48 -0400

> choices in a scroll-down menu as to the location accuracy while the

In terms of interface, I would see as reasonable a menu choice to
not reveal information, which after 30 seconds or so (and perhaps a
voice prompt), would default to revealing exact location.  That allows 
for informed choice without comprimising safety.

I can clearly see cases in which I want to summon emergency services
without revealing that I'm the one doing so.  For example, if I'm in
Amsterdam's red light district, I may want privacy, and be able to
report a street address.

Adam

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:35:48 -0700

> tell, Europe mirrors the US almost exactly in its requirements

i believe the archive of this list's predecessor references uk case law
to the contrary.  a uk emergency caller successfully sued because they
were located against their will.

randy

---

From: John W Noerenberg II <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:32:05 -0700

At 2:59 AM -0700 8/17/01, Andrew Daviel wrote:
>or are we just assuming convergence and assuming that future

I think you're on the right track with the idea that all wireless 
devices, indeed, all devices routing information over a 
packet-switched network are part of the Internet, ultimately.  I'm 
not convinced that circuit-switched telephony is best served by VoIP 
in all cases.

best,
-- 

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking
   for the truth,"  and so it goes away.  Puzzling.
   -- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert M. Pirsig, 1974
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:23:56 -0700

> for informed choice without comprimising safety.

Yes, good idea, but that's a user interface issue, not a protocol issue
(as long as the information is available locally on the end system). As
far as I know, user interfaces aren't specified by the IETF. We can (and
should) say that user interfaces should be designed to allow such
choices, but I don't expect this to have much effect beyond making us
feel good about having protected privacy. Look how much effect the
warnings in the MIME spec about asking users about executable content
have had.

> Amsterdam's red light district, I may want privacy, and be able to

Yes, that's clearly a useful feature. Note, however, that reporting
caller identity is not only used for speeding responses, but also to
discourage prank 911 calls or, more sinister, to use 911 to lure law
enforcement into a trap. Rumor has it, for example, that the NYPD is
very careful about following 911 calls from payphones in certain areas,
as these have been used to get officers ambushed. Thus, as usual, there
are multiple conflicting and legitimate objectives. Weighing such
trade-offs is done by politicians, not IETF standards, as these are not
technical issues. At best, we can provide the means to make good choices
easier.

---

From: Adam Shostack <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 13:39:39 -0400

> warnings in the MIME spec about asking users about executable content

Stephen Kent continues to argue that a security "protocol is not just
syntax, it's the processing part too."  (Message to Robert Muskowitz
and saag-wg, last Friday)  While my own interpretation is closer to
yours than his, I believe that we can specify that a user must be
given a choice, unless such a thing is forbidden by local law.  As to
will engineers implement such a thing?  I think that the more support
we can give to good implementation, the better off everyone will be.
I could argue that, given the number of poor prngs out there, RFC1751
was a waste of electrons.  Rather, I try to ensure the standards I'm
involved in address the issues as best they can, and then pressure
people to follow them.

> technical issues. At best, we can provide the means to make good choices

There are many places where we are asked to make these choices in the
design of our protocols.  The IETF and IAB have been fairly clear on
on the issues of security and privacy, and that protocol design for
the global internet should not be constrained by the laws of
individual countries, especially where laws vary substantially from
country to country.

Asking politicians to answer the question of how they trade off with
their counterparts in other countries is going to prevent us from
standardising in time for the Phase 2 that you've referred to.  We
need to, and are able to, make intelligent choices about these issues.

(See in particular RFCs 1984, 2804)

Adam