ecrit@ietf.org
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Ecrit] Not-so-grand compromise on how to do endpoint centricLCP wit

Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Not-so-grand compromise on how to do endpoint centricLCP without giving away the store
From: "Winterbottom, James"
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:03:47 -0500
There is potentially one other thing that springs to mind, and that is a
specific sos domain. If that were done, then the resulting URI itself
would be explicit that it was for emergency services.

Just a thought.

Cheers
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, 14 April 2007 12:43 AM
> To: Rosen, Brian
> Cc: geopriv@xxxxxxxx; ecrit@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Not-so-grand compromise on how to do endpoint
> centricLCP without giving away the store
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> thanks for posting this message.
> 
> When the end host is provided with LbyV and triggers the LoST lookup
and
> routes the call via its VSP then the VSP (in some circumstances*)
might
> want to verify that the PSAP URI in the message indeed corresponds to
a
> PSAP. The idea that was mentioned a long time ago already was to let
the
> VSP to use the location information for LoST and to compare the result
> with the content of the message.
> 
> The main goal here is that the VSP does not need to have a "business"
> contract to the ASP/ISP.
> 
> Since there is only a location reference that neither the end host nor
> the VSP can dereference it is necessary to enhance the existing
> procedures a bit (as Brian mentioned).
> 
> I see two ways todo so:
> 
> a) Enhance LoST
> b) Enhance the dereferencing protocol
> 
> In both cases you want to have the LbyR as input and the PSAP URI (and
> potentially the service number) as output.
> 
> For (a) you would have to address the LoST query to the LoST server in
> the ASP/ISP network and the result would be a nomal LoST response.
> For (b) you would have todo a dereferencing step with an additional
> parameter for "verify only". The response would be similar to the
lookup
> by the end host -- just the identity that is being used for the lookup
> would be different.
> 
> Both approaches are possible and since the VSP has to support both
> protocols it does not make a big difference which one to use.
> 
> In both cases you would have to compare the result of the lookup with
> the content of the message.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> *: It is only necessary when the VSP charges for individual calls or
for
> specific calls (with the given call falling into this category).
> 
> Rosen, Brian wrote:
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>