Skip to main content

Requirements for Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies
RFC 5012

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
13 (System) Notify list changed from ecrit-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2008-01-09
13 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2008-01-09
13 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 5012' added by Amy Vezza
2008-01-07
13 (System) RFC published
2007-06-25
13 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2007-06-25
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2007-06-25
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2007-06-25
13 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2007-06-25
13 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2007-06-25
13 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2007-06-22
13 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-06-21
2007-06-21
13 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2007-06-21
13 Lisa Dusseault
[Ballot comment]
Good document.  I didn't understand this one though:

  Id9.  Discovery of visited emergency numbers:  There MUST be a
      mechanism …
[Ballot comment]
Good document.  I didn't understand this one though:

  Id9.  Discovery of visited emergency numbers:  There MUST be a
      mechanism to allow the end device to learn visited emergency
      numbers.

      Motivation: Travelers visiting a foreign country may observe the
      local emergency number, e.g., seeing it painted on the side of a
      fire truck, and then rightfully expect to be able to dial that
      emergency number.  Similarly, a local "good Samaritan" may use a
      tourist's cell phone to summon help
2007-06-21
13 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2007-06-21
13 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward
2007-06-21
13 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2007-06-21
13 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Review by Christian Vogt:

This document defines a set of requirements that context resolution
mechanisms should provide in support of emergency calls.  Overall, …
[Ballot comment]
Review by Christian Vogt:

This document defines a set of requirements that context resolution
mechanisms should provide in support of emergency calls.  Overall, this
document is technically mature and easy to read.

A few comments on the high-level requirements, still:

- Re1 says that emergency calls should be possible independent of the
existence of an application service provider.  I would generalize this
to saying that that an emergency call should be possible independent of
whether there exists an application service provider with which the
caller -- or even better: the calling UE -- currently has a valid
account (e.g., with a high-enough balance).

- Given that the caller might not own the UE from which an emergency
call is placed, one important additional requirement should be to enable
the caller to select a language when making the call.  The UE may not be
configured to a language the caller understands.  E.g., I can envision a
user trying to make an emergency call from the camera UE of another
person, possibly the injured person, because the caller's own UE does
not support video calls, and a video call is useful for the emergency
response team to estimate the seriousness of injuries.

- Re5 talks about different URIs for different protocols, yet does not
mention that some protocols should be mandatory to support.  As the text
is now, an emergency caller may get stuck with a set of URIs none of
which is supported by its UE.

- The same holds for location data formats in Re7.
2007-06-21
13 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2007-06-21
13 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2007-06-21
13 Russ Housley [Ballot comment]
Please spell out "PSAP" the first time it is used.

  Please add a reference for WGS-84.
2007-06-21
13 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2007-06-21
13 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2007-06-21
13 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2007-06-21
13 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2007-06-20
13 Yoshiko Fong IANA Evaluation Comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand
this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2007-06-20
13 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2007-06-20
13 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2007-06-20
13 Cullen Jennings
[Ballot comment]
On Re1: It seems like the thing described in the motivation is an ASP in the definition of ASP we are using. I …
[Ballot comment]
On Re1: It seems like the thing described in the motivation is an ASP in the definition of ASP we are using. I found this confusing but I think I agree with the underlying use cases people have in mind.
2007-06-20
13 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2007-06-19
13 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2007-06-15
13 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Lakshminath Dondeti
2007-06-15
13 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Lakshminath Dondeti
2007-06-14
13 Jon Peterson State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Jon Peterson
2007-06-14
13 Jon Peterson Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-06-21 by Jon Peterson
2007-06-14
13 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jon Peterson
2007-06-14
13 Jon Peterson Ballot has been issued by Jon Peterson
2007-06-14
13 Jon Peterson Created "Approve" ballot
2007-06-14
13 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2007-06-14
13 (System) Last call text was added
2007-06-14
13 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2007-03-05
13 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2007-03-05
13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-13.txt
2007-03-02
13 Jon Peterson State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested by Jon Peterson
2006-11-05
13 Jon Peterson
PROTO writeup:

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version …
PROTO writeup:

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Document Shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig (Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net).
The document is ready for publications and I have reviewed the document personally.


  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The first version of the working group document was created based on individual submissions by a number of working group members listed in Section 11. The document took far longer than initially planned and received reviews by NENA and ETSI EMTEL (organizations that work in the emergency services environment). The requirements have been presented to the 3GPP as well.

The Document Shepherd is convinced that the document is in good quality, reviewed the document several times (different versions including the last one) and believes that the document could serve as a template for requirements document developed by other working groups.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

The document does not require further reviews.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if those issues have been discussed in the WG and the
          WG has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
          detail those concerns here.

There are no specific issues worth mentioning. Over the lifetime of the document it was changed many times (e.g., modifications of the terminology). This, however, reflects the hard work on the document and the desire to produce a high-quality RFC rather than a problem with the document as such.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?


There is strong consensus by the working group behind the document.


  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire will
          be entered into the ID Tracker.)


  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document satisfies
          all ID nits?  (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

It turns out that there is an unused reference.

  Experimental warnings:
  - Unused Reference: '13' is defined on line 1028, but not referenced
    '[13]  Wijk, A. and G. Gybels, "Framework for real-time text over IP...'

We would like to remove this unused reference during AUTH48.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document has references split into a normative and informative references.

This is a requirements document and there is only a single normative reference (to RFC 2119).

  (1.i)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.

  This document defines terminology and enumerates requirements for the
  context resolution of emergency calls placed by the public using
  voice-over-IP (VoIP) and general Internet multimedia systems, where
  Internet protocols are used end-to-end.



          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
            example, was there controversy about particular points or
            were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
            rough?

This document received wide acceptance within the working group.
There are no aspects of fundamental controversy worth mentioning.

          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
            significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
            implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
            merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
            e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
            conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?

This is a requirements document. It places requirements on the design of the mapping protocol and the Service URN draft.

The reviewers and contributors are listed in Section 11 and Section 12.
As it can be seen from the long list of names the document received
intensive reviews (also from other organizations working in the area of emergency services).
2006-11-05
13 Jon Peterson Draft Added by Jon Peterson in state Publication Requested
2006-08-28
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-12.txt
2006-08-07
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-11.txt
2006-06-12
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-10.txt
2006-05-18
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-09.txt
2006-05-03
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-08.txt
2006-04-20
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-07.txt
2006-03-08
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-06.txt
2006-03-02
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-05.txt
2006-02-22
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-04.txt
2006-02-03
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-03.txt
2006-01-03
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-02.txt
2005-10-24
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-01.txt
2005-09-06
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-00.txt