|
|
Brian,
You also realize that an emergency call is going to be routed using 'stale'
data. We've always stated that routing at call time is optimal. You are
prepared to give that up?
-Marc-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 3:11 PM
> To: 'Marc Linsner'; Rosen, Brian; geopriv@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: ecrit@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] Not-so-grand compromise on
> how to do endpointcentric LCPwithout giving away the store
>
> I think that is part of the tradeoff an access network makes.
> If its restricting access to location, and location is
> needed to route, then it has to assume the liability for
> misroute, since it's providing the route in lieu of providing
> location for the VSP to route.
>
> If it doesn't want to assume that liability, then it has to
> give location to someone who does the route, and we're back
> around that axle again.
>
> So, I think it's reasonable that the access network deal with
> misroutes in this case.
>
> Brian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 1:23 PM
> > To: 'Rosen, Brian'; geopriv@xxxxxxxx
> > Cc: ecrit@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] Not-so-grand compromise on how to do
> > endpointcentric LCPwithout giving away the store
> >
> > Who is responsible for PSAP mis-routes? I would think this
> transfers
> > liability for routing to the access-provider, are they
> willing to step
> > up to that?
> >
> > -Marc-
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 7:18 AM
> > > To: geopriv@xxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: ecrit@xxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [Ecrit] Not-so-grand compromise on how to do endpoint
> > > centric LCPwithout giving away the store
> > >
> > > In the Emergency Services SDO Coordination workshop, a familiar
> > > discussion took place: how does location get provided for
> emergency
> > > calls? The real issue is revenue.
> > > Access networks have location. They may be willing to (or may be
> > > regulated to be required to) provide location for
> emergency calls.
> > > However, they are not willing to give it away for free for other
> > > uses. The issue with that is how we support calling
> networks that
> > > don't have relationships with access networks, i.e. the Skype
> > > situation. How is location provided such that a Skype emergency
> > > call can be placed, but the access network can restrict what else
> > > may be done with the location it provides?
> > >
> > > We have been wrapped around the axle on this for, dare I
> say, years.
> > >
> > > So, I think Barbara Stark first described this, and it needs some
> > > work, but suppose that, as an option, an access network could
> > > supply:
> > >
> > > 1. A reference to location
> > >
> > > 2. The results of a LoST query on the location value
> (viz, PSAP URI
> > > and local dialstring)
> > >
> > > With this, an endpoint could recognize an emergency call
> and start
> > > routing it to the right PSAP. The LIS would agree to dereference
> > > for PSAPs, but could restrict other uses of location.
> > >
> > > Hannes points out that we need one more thing: the
> calling network
> > > has to be able to validate that the PSAP URI really is a
> PSAP URI so
> > > that charging (emergency calls generally are
> > > free) is protected. We need a mechanism for them to do that.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we include in the LoST return a country code for a query
> > > with a geo. We add a new operation to LoST that takes a
> service, a
> > > country code and a PSAP URI and returns yes/no validation ("Yes,
> > > that URI is a valid URI for that service in that country").
> > >
> > > What would we need to do to make this happen?
> > >
> > > We need extensions to LCPs or some new protocol that
> returns an LbyR
> > > and the LoST results. I wonder if this is just more HELD work.
> > >
> > > We need the PSAP URI validation.
> > >
> > > Again, this is optional. The access network may well
> give up an LbyV.
> > > It may give up an LbyR that it will dereference for the
> endpoint.
> > > The access network may have a relationship with the
> calling network
> > > such that the endpoint need not be involved.
> > >
> > > The PSAP URI validation is actually useful without this idea,
> > > especially when location is an LbyR. Instead of having
> to have the
> > > calling network dereference, and then do a LoST query to
> validate,
> > > it can just do this PSAP URI validation.
> > >
> > > Would this solve our problem? Would access carriers
> concerned about
> > > revenue issues with "giving away" location to it's subscribers be
> > > willing to provide LbyR dereferenceable by PSAPs (again
> remembering
> > > that the access network are local to the PSAPs) as well as LoST
> > > query services to their endpoints? Would this address
> the concerns
> > > raised by Deutsche Telecom on this issue?
> > >
> > > Let me be very clear that I think this is an ugly solution.
> > > I think that everyone will be much better off if endpoints knew
> > > where they were, and apps could take advantage of that.
> > > I think we'll get there. I think tying location
> configuration with
> > > the LoST query is a bad idea. I think using LbyR for emergency
> > > calls is a bad idea.
> > >
> > > But I can live with it.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ecrit mailing list
> > > Ecrit@xxxxxxxx
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > Geopriv@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
|
|