Subject: [Ecrit] Comments on [draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-02.txt]

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:00:04 -0500

I reviewed this document from the perspective of an employee of a major service provider. Nonetheless, these opinions are mine, as an individual.
I believe this is the right type of protocol to meet this need, and that it is progressing well. I've been following the discussion of issues, and am satisfied that the right issues are being discussed and properly addressed. I have no specific comments on the actual text.
I would like to see some other industry bodies (such as NENA in the US) expand on "Civic Address Validation". I think the level of detail in this document is appropriate, but that for validation to really work, national bodies need to specify more detailed validation rules, consistent with how location information is managed and used in their country. For example, when ZIP Code and city name are both "valid", but do not match, which is considered invalid? Is the street name used as a tie breaker (street name is valid in ZIP code, but not city)? This might be useful work to suggest at the next SDO meeting.
Barbara Stark
BellSouth Science & Technology (a recently acquired part of AT&T)

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA623

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:09:08 -0500

Thanks for your comments.

The -03 version will probably amplify this aspect a bit, but I think  
the general notion should be

- the protocol indicates which elements it used for mapping (in your  
example, it would indicate 'zip' or 'city')

- it would return a best-guess mapping.

There is a sub-case that is of practical interest: Namely, that the  
address is self-contradicting, but the result is the same. For  
example, if somebody were to use the wrong NYC zip code, the same  
PSAP would be returned.

I don't think a protocol specification can reasonably predict  
information quality trade-offs. In general, these should not occur  
for actual emergency calls, as they are discovered long beforehand in  
our current model. I'm not even sure NENA can come up with national  
rules for this, as this is less of a US-vs-other-country issue but  
rather a local decision, possibly informed by local circumstances.  
("The telco folks in Smalltown always get the zip code wrong since it  
was just changed; we'll ignore it for now.")

Thus, to avoid discussions in the abstract, I think it would be  
helpful to clearly identify the type of decisions that a local policy  
might make. Having these spelled out will also help implementors to  
provide the right hooks, since we really don't want every police  
chief to program Java.

Henning

On Jan 11, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Stark, Barbara wrote:

> I reviewed this document from the perspective of an employee of a  
> major service provider. Nonetheless, these opinions are mine, as an  
> individual.
>
> I believe this is the right type of protocol to meet this need, and  
> that it is progressing well. I've been following the discussion of  
> issues, and am satisfied that the right issues are being discussed  
> and properly addressed. I have no specific comments on the actual  
> text.
>
> I would like to see some other industry bodies (such as NENA in the  
> US) expand on "Civic Address Validation". I think the level of  
> detail in this document is appropriate, but that for validation to  
> really work, national bodies need to specify more detailed  
> validation rules, consistent with how location information is  
> managed and used in their country. For example, when ZIP Code and  
> city name are both "valid", but do not match, which is considered  
> invalid? Is the street name used as a tie breaker (street name is  
> valid in ZIP code, but not city)? This might be useful work to  
> suggest at the next SDO meeting.
>
> Barbara Stark
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or  
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential,  
> proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review,  
> retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any  
> action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities  
> other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received  
> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material  
> from all computers. GA623
>