Subject: RE: [Ecrit] call marking

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 16:51:54 -0500

You're both on to something here, but remember (and Andy mentions it
with other mechanisms), MOST PSAPS, via their Computer Aided Dispatch
systems, will be overriding the priority codes for all calls as they're
processed according to the Standard Operating Procedures within their
agency. The call path (network routing) will identify the call as "an
emergency call" (based on the actual "line" of delivery)... The "marker"
will be provided elsewhere (other mechanisms) for the most part. If you
think it is necessary for your routing practices, that's another issue,
but from the operational aspect of marking calls as "emergencies" --
it's done elsewhere and differently from PSAP to PSAP.

For what it's worth.

Jenny 

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:48 PM
To: Andrew Newton
Cc: ECRIT
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] call marking

But marking for what purpose? Without knowing what this supposed to be
used for, it's hard to design a mechanism that has the right properties.
As one obvious issue, if the marking is just informational, we wouldn't
care if somebody marked calls to the local pizza delivery outfit as
"emergency" if they are hungry. But in that case, I'm somewhat at a loss
as to why this would be useful for real emergency calls.

Also, in general, I think it's a good design approach to see if there's
a broader context here. For example, is this a special instance of
marking types or classes of calls?

On Jan 4, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Andrew Newton wrote:

>
> On Jan 4, 2007, at 2:55 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>
>> Maybe it would be helpful to discuss requirements first and who would

>> use the call marking for what.
>>
>  [...snip..]
>> So, what are the goals and when precisely do we need this?
>
> I agree that we need to understand the requirement.  And I'd prefer 
> that the requirement be this: "Marking a call as an emergency call 
> without implying anything else."  The arguments, as I understand them,

> against the resource priority header is that it overloading another 
> mechanism: I guess some jurisdictions don't think emergency calls are 
> worthy of a priority higher than normal.  I'd say the argument is also

> true for using the request URI.  You are overloading another mechanism

> that has another purpose.
>
> -andy

_______________________________________________
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: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 20:05:47 -0500

Jenny

Apples to Oranges comparison.  The SIP call never gets to CAD, at least for
the current definition of CAD.  Some data extracted from the call will, but
that won't be SIP signaling. 

We're talking about the mechanisms used within the Internet and carrier
networks to get calls to what we would now call the "Emergency Services IP
Network".  We may end up remarking calls within the network for some of the
marks we are talking about, but I'd like to avoid that if possible.  I think
within the ESInet, we'll use the existing MLPP priority mechanisms, which is
the RP header.  Whether we need a new name space in RP for use within public
safety networks is debatable.  I think the existing military one will work
okay, but we can make one if we need one.

The questing in this context is whether it's appropriate to use RP, with a
new name space, in the Internet and carrier networks.  That's what we are
discussing.  I personally think we should.

Probably not relevant to this list, but since calls need to be progressed,
redirected, forwarded, conferenced and transferred between PSAPs, you have
to assume that there is standardized marking and priority nationwide within
the networks the PSAPs are connected to.  That's external to a particular
PSAP.  Within a PSAP, there may be some remarking or PHBs that are specific
to the PSAP. 

Brian 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:52 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Ecrit] call marking
>