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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-11/ 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rosen-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-03/ 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-02/ 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