Subject: RE: [Ecrit] issue 8: Addition of New Emergency Identifiers

From: "Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:12:20 -0500

Ok, it wasn't clear if that referred to just the "universal emergency
service scheme" or the 911, 112, ad nauseum numbering.  The former is
desirable, the latter tower of babel is not and should be relegated to
being a user interface issue.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:05 AM
> To: Michael Hammer (mhammer)
> Cc: [email-masked]; Andrew Newton
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] issue 8: Addition of New Emergency Identifiers
> 
> hi mike,
> 
> there is actually more than one "universal" identifier. i 
> don't know which term we should use to refer to
> 
>     urn:service:sos
>     urn:service:sos.fire
>     urn:service:sos.police
>     urn:service:sos.marine
>     urn:service:sos.mountain
>     urn:service:sos.rescue
>     urn:service:sos.poison
>     urn:service:sos.suicide
>     urn:service:sos.mental-health
> 
> (copy-and-paste from draft-schulzrinne-sipping-service-01.txt).
> 
> the urn:service:sos.police identifier would be the "universal" 
> identifier denoting a desire to place an emergency call to the police.
> 
> ciao
> hannes
> 
> Michael Hammer (mhammer) wrote:
> > BTW, if there is more than one identifier, then any 
> identifier is no 
> > longer "universal".
> > 
> > The "one or more" universal requirement is an oxymoron.
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> >>Of Hannes Tschofenig
> >>Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:22 AM
> >>To: [email-masked]; Andrew Newton
> >>Subject: [Ecrit] issue 8: Addition of New Emergency Identifiers
> >>
> >>hi andy,
> >>hi all,
> >>
> >>in order to close a few open issues i would to discuss issue#8.
> >>here is the text from the issue tracker:
> >>
> >>"
> >>Requirements A1a and A1b specify a universal identifier.  
> >>These requirements specify "one or more."  What are the 
> requirements 
> >>regarding adding new emergency identifiers?
> >>"
> >>
> >>currently there are no requirements regarding the registration or 
> >>regarding future enhancements. can you think of something 
> that should 
> >>go into a requirements document?
> >>
> >>ciao
> >>hannes
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Ecrit mailing list
> >>[email-masked]
> >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:17 +0100

hi mike

i agree with you that the identifiers introduced in the sipping-service 
or sipping-sos drafts are not particularly attractive for the user 
interface.

the good thing: the user interface are outside the scope of ecrit. we 
care for the stuff that travels over the wire.

ciao
hannes

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:00:53 -0500

On Jan 17, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> the good thing: the user interface are outside the scope of ecrit.  
> we care for the stuff that travels over the wire.

I find it odd that in the IETF we usually consider the needs of  
network operators but we get to ignore the needs of network users.   
The "user interfaces are out of scope" mentality is a wholesale  
excuse for not pondering the problem closely enough.

 From a user interface perspective, I think more than 3 identifiers  
is overkill.  Do we really want users to have scroll through a menu  
"types of emergency" just to make an emergency phone call?

Anyway, Henning's draft is fine by me.  And if it states how to add  
new identifiers, good (because it should).  But that still doesn't  
mean we need a requirement that the system should be able to have new  
identifiers added to it when necessary.  Henning's draft is just an  
implementation of the requirement.

-andy

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:19:23 -0500

You never see the universal identifiers in a user interface.  You map a
local dialstring to them.  If your local fire number is 877-0000 and your
local police number is 878-0000 then those strings map to
urn:service:sos.fire and usn:service:sos.police

And, if a proxy does dial plan interpretation, then those dialstrings WILL
be on the wire.  They won't hit the mapping system; someone has to interpret
sip:8770000;user=dialstring into urn:service:sos.fire first, but they appear
on the wire between the phone and the proxy.

The issue at hand is how does the dialplan interpreter find out what the
local dialstrings are?

I, for one, care a whole lot about how we get good user interfaces.  I tend
to be very vocal when I don't see how to do that.

Brian

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Andrew Newton
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:01 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] issue 8: Addition of New Emergency Identifiers

the good thing: the user interface are outside the scope of ecrit. we care
for the stuff that travels over the wire.

I find it odd that in the IETF we usually consider the needs of network
operators but we get to ignore the needs of network users. The "user
interfaces are out of scope" mentality is a wholesale excuse for not
pondering the problem closely enough.

>From a user interface perspective, I think more than 3 identifiers is
overkill. Do we really want users to have scroll through a menu "types of
emergency" just to make an emergency phone call?

Anyway, Henning's draft is fine by me. And if it states how to add new
identifiers, good (because it should). But that still doesn't mean we need a
requirement that the system should be able to have new identifiers added to
it when necessary. Henning's draft is just an implementation of the
requirement.

-andy

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:20:20 -0500

I am not at all sure this discussion is entirely about dialplans.   
Surely, they are part of the problem.  To be truthful, I was focusing  
on the "emergency button" which I am told UAs are starting to have or  
will have.  I have actually never seen one on a phone, though I have  
seen them on alarm systems.  In those cases, it has always been  
"police", "fire", and "medical".

But getting to the dialplan issue.  In North American, why would I be  
dialing 877-0000 instead of 911?  And when I dial 911, who do I get?   
The police?  The fire department?  I suspect it is a call center that  
can dispatch both based on what information I convey via voice.

I was also under the impression a large part of the problem is the  
mobility of the UA.  If I take my North American phone to the UK and  
dial 911, shouldn't it convert 911 to urn:service:sos?  Would it  
being doing the right thing by converting 911 to  
urn:service:sos:police?  What if I am trying to report a fire?

As to the issue of the proxy, I don't get it.  If I'm in the habit of  
dialing 911 in both Wichita and London and the proxy is in the habit  
of converting that number to urn:service:sos, what is the issue?

Do we actually have a problem statement written on this requirement?   
That might help.

-andy

On Jan 17, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> we care
> network

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:40:15 -0500

Generally, the emergency services guys don't like emergency buttons.  They
were common on cellphones for a while, but have been completely eliminated
because of too many false alarms.  I keep thinking it would work if you
needed confirmation, but the 9-1-1 guys say it takes 4 keypresses to place a
9-1-1 call on a cell phone, it really doesn't ever happen accidently, and
that's the way they like it.  There are people who apparently put 9-1-1 on a
speed dial, and then they do get false alarms.

The current system can't actually handle a "police" button; every button
would have to do the same thing - call 9-1-1 (in North America).  In the new
system, we can do something with it, albeit it's likely the call will be
processed exactly the same whether you press "Police", "Fire" or "Medical".
It will route the same, the same person would answer, but the call
processing and operator displays may be different.  Part of any emergency
call handling is classification, and it can only help if the user starts the
classification.  They are unlikely to actually believe in self
classification; they will always verify.

There are places in North America where 9-1-1 does not work.  Of course
there are many places in the world where there is not a single emergency
number.  The solutions we are proposing work in all circumstances.

I believe Henning and I agree that habits are hard to break, and if you roam
a North American phone into London, dialing 9-1-1 should summon help.  We
also believe that dialing 9-9-9 should work.  This means that whoever
interprets the dialplan (the phone or a proxy located wherever) must be able
to know what your "home" emergency dialstring is as well as what the local
one where you are now is.  The "home" strings could conceivably be
provisioned, because your home carrier probably has a good idea where your
home actually is.  The local strings have to be discovered dynamically.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:20 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'Hannes Tschofenig'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] issue 8: Addition of New Emergency Identifiers

-andy

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:01:28 -0500

> home actually is.  The local strings have to be discovered  

Brian,

Thank you very much for patiently explaining this.  And I agree with  
a lot of what you said.

There are two different requirements here.  The first requirement is  
that a "home" emergency number be translated into a universal  
identifier.  The second requirement is that an emergency identifier  
for the current location of the user be translated into a universal  
identifier.

That is not at all obvious with the current wording.

-andy

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:47:20 +0000

Brian Rosen said:
> the 9-1-1 guys say it takes 4 keypresses to place a
> that's the way they like it.

Hmm: I was told recently that about *half* the calls to 999/112 in the UK
are accidental.

In particular, if I lock my mobile handset, it will still recognise the
sequence 1 1 2 <send> and make the call; I believe that's standard
behaviour. Being joggled in my pocket could make that happen.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[email-masked]>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[email-masked]>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |