Minutes for ECRIT at IETF-95

Meeting Minutes Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies (ecrit) WG
Title Minutes for ECRIT at IETF-95
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2016-04-14

Meeting Minutes

   ECRIT Agenda - 1000-1230  Wednesday Morning Session I, April 6, 2016 IETF95
Buenos Aires Meeting Room: Quebracho A Notetaker: Christine Runnegar (thank you
Christine!) No Jabberscribe found

WG Chairs: Roger Marshall and Marc Linsner

=> 10 min * Agenda Bashing, Draft Status Update (Chairs)

Note well
Expect to finish early
No changes to agenda

=> Document status

Additional Data Related to an Emergency call - in RFC editor queue - working
out late comments - authors will update - new version - activity on the email
list Alissa - deadline for feedback - by next Friday - go back to FRC editor if
consensus with changes Chairs - so far we have rough consensus

Next Generation Vehicle Initiated Emergency Call Next Generation Pan-European
eCall ready to go to IESG 3GPP is working requirements for like service (per
list and liaison) will continue our process and re-sync with 3GPP progress
prior to publication

Data-Only Emergency Calls
we need reviews, run another WGLC

A routing request extension for the HELD Protocol Now RFC 7840

A LoST extensions to return complete and similar location several reviews,
ready for WGLC next week

=> Milestones

(see chair slides)

=> 20 min * Data-Only Emergency Calls

Brian Rosen presenting
Defines a way to carry a common alerting profile message in a SIP message (e.g.
for alarms) WGLC concluded, no objections There was a comment after LC about
privacy subject to local regulations which we will add to the draft Needed for
NENA for deployment Please advance

Chairs - want to submit to WGLC

Pretty stable and pretty simple
New version will come out with Keith’s change then WGLC

= > 20 min * Validation of Locations Around a Planned Change

Brian Rosen presenting

Changes in draft within a LoST server happens, usually planned events (like
annexation) - real world problem Cities grow by annexation (typical example)
and on midnight on some date the city has a different boundaries and emergency
calls that used to route elsewhere need to go to city - not catered for in LoST
- consequence of change is the validation may or may not be correct in the
future - when a changes like that is made not uncommon for address to change
(e.g. because the community changes) No way to push invalidation out to LIS,
have to depend on periodic revalidation Draft proposes a new element to 
request:  URI to be saved with location; AsOf date to perform validation
against; Also includes object pushed to LIS @ URI that contains AsOf
invalidation date Implementors need it, have spoken up on the list Still an
individual draft, would like it adopted and start WGLC, for a practical real
world problem NENA wants it (Note: validation also changes for other reasons
than the planned changes - beware of overwhelming the LoST server - let it
control the rate of revalidation 50,000 calls being routed through LoST - 6
full scale deployed implementations at last count - this works and people are
using it

Chairs - will do this on the list

20 min * A LoST extension to return complete and similar location info

Brian Rosen presenting

Defines a way to return Location Information in a  response Two uses - invalid
location (did you mean possible replacement value) or request might have enough
info to determine a unique location, but not in the form the addressing
authorities wants it Has been reviewed - implementors want it Some substantive
comments - working on addressing the comments in the coming days - need to put
out a new version Request WGLC on that version - do that on the list

Chairs - will do this on the list

20 min * Future WG Discussion

Chairs - All WG docs should be in IESG land in the next month; one individual
draft that Brian is asking we adopt as a WG item - if adopted, by end of May
only one document we are working on - need to decide in Berlin what to do with
the WG

Brian - at least two things need to come in - implementation experience - would
like to see WG stay but not meetings - list is useful - having people who do
useful reviews (e.g. like Keith on the first draft discussed today) - don’t
think we need to meet Alissa - I agree - keep WG until docs are in the RFC
editors queue - fine with keeping in a dormant state Jon Peterson - Brian are
there other places where people are meeting and discussing these issues? Could
consider transitioning to a better place? Just a question Brian - NENA is the
obvious place, they are capable of doing standards, could do, but not sure that
is the right thing - appreciate reviews of people with wider expertise in the
IETF - prefer to bring NENA people into the IETF process Alissa - important
that we are not jurisdiction specific Chairs - will decide between now and then
whether we will meet in Berlin

Meeting closed