|
|
I also believe that this is reasonable assumption with regard to the
split of responsibilities in this particular case.
Brian Rosen wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
|
|