Subject: RE: [Sipping-emergency] New revision of proposed ECRIT charter

From: "Abbott, Nadine B." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:14:15 -0500

James, 
I think that the name/contact info of the provider of the location object is
already, appropriately, included in the PIDF-LO.  My original question was
posed to try to determine the appropriate forum to address additional
information that might be provided by either the caller, or possibly with
the assistance of a VoIP Service Provider, if one exists, on emergency
calls.  This is not information that would logically or necessarily be known
to a provider of a location object.
It is conceivable that such information might be included as extensions to
the PIDF-LO in order to take advantage of the work already done to protect
privacy by geopriv. However, it is also possible that such information might
be included in a separate object which would could have different privacy
needs.  For example, it might not need to be made available to
intermediaries (because it's not needed for routing), but could be made
available only to the receiving emergency call center.  This object could
possibly leverage the work on privacy and security requirements done by
geopriv? 
I was trying to understand what WG would consider that within scope.
Thanks,
Nadine  

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 1:18 PM
To: Henning Schulzrinne; Tschofenig Hannes
Cc: Abbott, Nadine B.; Peterson, Jon; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sipping-emergency] New revision of proposed ECRIT charter

What Nadine wants is the name of the organization that provided the 
location to the endpoint. This is not a decoupled action between the CIPID 
and the PIDF-LO, their are in association with each other. Revealing who 
asserts my location information (Fort_worth_VPC.org) reveals fairly 
specifically where I am in most contexts. This is a revelation of location 
information I as a user might not want in my location policy. If you 
mandate it is outside of the rules of PIDF-LO, we must generate a duplicate 
set of privacy and security requirements in this WG

At 08:44 AM 10/29/2004 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>Tschofenig Hannes wrote:
>>hi james, nadine, henning,
>>henning pointed us to some work in the simple wg. maybe you, nadine, 
>>want to check whether the nena requirements match the currently 
>>offered functionality.
>
>To amplify: vCard currently provides the name (and other information), 
>but
>doesn't provide the service provider name and other details. However, it 
>would seem trivial to add either to CIPID or vCard, as they may well be 
>useful outside the emergency services context. From a data type 
>perspective, these pieces of information aren't really location 
>information, so stuffing them into PIDF-LO or an extension thereof seems a 
>bit of a stretch.
>
>My general inclination is to avoid emergency-only protocol features.
>
>Henning
>
>

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

_______________________________________________
Sipping-emergency mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-emergency