Hi Jeroen, > Based on all these discussions (including the proposal to remove emergency > related text from the draft), I can't help but wonder: is the use case for > "location conveyance for emergency calls" important and special enough to > warrant its own solution?
The proposal to move emergency service related content from the SIP Location Conveyance draft and from the PIDF-LO Profile draft to the ECRIT Phone BCP document is a document management type of thing. Nothing to worry about. Just to keep things together that belong together. A few of us also tend to quickly jump to examples about emergency services when we talk about location-based routing or location-based SIP applications. I am not sure what you mean by special. > > So far, it has been treated as merely a special case of location-based > routing. But the need for it (yesterday, regulatory driven), Please note that there are different regulatory requirements for different parts. There are no regulatory requirement for plain VoIP emergency services (without PSAP interworking or systems that claim to be a replacement of the PSTN). Note, however, that I am not a laywer and some folks on this list might know more about the state of regulatory affairs throughout the world. the > security/privacy aspects (ignore them), Well. We have discussed many security aspects in the context of emergency services. There are also privacy related aspects that need to be considered. In fact, we recently had a separate panel discussion at the SDO emergency services workshop to address this topic. See http://www.emergency-services-coordination.info/2007/, the slides for the panel sessions can be found here: http://www.tschofenig.com/twiki/bin/view/EmergencyServices/EswPanelParticipants It just varies from country to country. Japan, for example, has quite challenging privacy rules even for emergency services. > the required information (single > location, no shapes e.d.) all seem vastly different from the general case. I don't know where you got the message that emergency services works with simpler location shapes. In fact, it would even be necessary to indicate what the different shapes would be used for since there are different consumers in the entire message flow. The SDO emergency services workshop I asked the audience about the state-of-the-art location shape types that are being used and I got the impression that fairly complex shapes are already in use today (in the cellular world). I have asked NENA to solicit feedback from the PSAP operator community to learn more about their needs with this respect. A few responses from my own investigations revealed that they would certainly like to have more location information (requiring more complex shapes) for dispatch purposes. > Link that to the observation that a header-based mechanism would be much > easier to generate (both by UEs and gateways) and parse at routing proxies > and PSAPs, reducing the chance at errors in situations that may cost lives > AND speeding up implementation rates, I'd say : separate it out? Would be great if everything would be just that simple. Ciao Hannes > > Regards, > Jeroen > > Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > > I mis-spoke. I was actually thinking of a different solution, more > > appropriate to the SIP header model. After all, for geo, two numbers > > (long/lat) in WGS84 datum are all that matters in most circumstances, > > on occasion augmented by a third (some 'measurement accuracy' > > indication). > > > > The XMPP XML model that Juha and you refer to isn't all that much > > simpler than GEOPRIV civic or GML Point, just different, as you note. > > (Whether supporting the multitude of geometric shapes in the pdif-lo > > profile spec is truly required and where is another discussion which > > belongs elsewhere.) > > > > I don't know if by 'security' you refer to the embedded privacy > > policies; in most cases, restrictive default values would do the > > trick for those. Plus, for emergency calls, few PSAPs are going to > > observe 'do not distribute' or 'do not retain' in any event, simply > > because the law in many jurisdictions contradicts those desires. > > > > Henning > > > > On Apr 29, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > > > >> Hi Henning, > >> > >> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0080.html takes an interesting > >> approach by largely ignoring previous work on geolocation. It is > >> just too attractive to create your own flavor of civic and geodetic > >> location information format. > >> > >> Interestingly enough there is a full-blown solution for XMPP > >> available as well that builds on the OMA protocols. I have to > >> search for the reference, if someone cares. That one is far more > >> complex than GEOPRIV. > >> > >> If you argue for simplicity then you refer to http://www.xmpp.org/ > >> extensions/xep-0080.html. > >> > >> If you argue for functionality, different environments and > >> interworking with existing systems then you point to the OMA > >> extension. > >> > >> It's so easy. Translated to our work in GEOPRIV this would mean the > >> following: If we want to convince people to use it then we just > >> point them to the easy WLAN or enterprise case with a simple civic > >> or a simple point representation. > >> > >> Ciao > >> Hannes > >> > >> PS: Last November I was at a conference on mobility protocols. > >> Someone gave a presentation on a new mobility protocol design. The > >> author claimed it was very simple. Indeed, it was simple -- because > >> it just didn't care about security. > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
