Subject: [Ecrit] Ecma-International work on emergency calls in enterprise networks

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:57:17 +0100

As part of its work on enterprise networks under the name Next
Generation Corporate Networks (NGCN), including interoperation with NGN,
Ecma-International has carried out investigations into emergency calling
in enterprise networks, and a near-final draft of the resulting
Technical Report is available here:

http://www.ecma-international.org/activities/Communications/9th%20draft%
20TRNGCN%20Emergency%20calls.pdf

The report draws heavily on the work of ECRIT. Any comments on the draft
would be appreciated. We hope to finalise it during the second half of
September.

John

---

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:39:31 +0300

Hi John, 

Thanks for sharing this document with us. Interesting writeup. 

I browsed through it and it looked pretty good. I will have some comments
once I do a detailed review. 

For now I just wanted to quickly respond to the standardization gaps that
are listed in the document: 

------
STANDARDISATION GAP 1 (see 6.1.2): There are currently no service URNs
defined for
use where enterprise-specific emergency services need to be identified
separately from
public emergency services.
------

First, there is the question whether you really need this. I will have to
read through the document in more detail to get an understanding. 

Let's assume you do need additional service URNs then there are a few ways
to get them: 

* You could define new sub-services for the 'sos' service
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5031.txt
Policy:  expert review 

* You could define new to-top level service URNs
Since a number of folks in the group wanted to do that we started the
discussion around relaxing the policy from 'Standards Action' (as defined in
RFC 5031) to 'expert review' (in
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-forte-ecrit-service-urn-policy-00.txt). The
rechartering process is currently ongoing. 

* Finally, you can define your own URNs, as it is done with
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-urn-nena-00
The usage scenario in NENA is, however, different. There, folks want to use
their own Service URNs within the ESINet. 

So, it depends on your scenarios. 

------
STANDARDISATION GAP 2 (see 6.2.2.2.2): There is no standardised means of
conveying
information on position relative to access points in SIP.
------

This is a GEOPRIV topic. There was a proposal
(http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-linsner-geopriv-relativeloc-03.txt) or even
more than one. 

If I recall it correctly then the main question by some folks in the GEOPRIV
group was whether this is really so useful. I again have to read through
your document to figure out what your arguments are. 

------
STANDARDISATION GAP 3 (see 6.4.3): There is currently no reliable means of
identifying
a return call from an ERC.
------

We had chats about this topic in ECRIT for a long time and then finally
decided that we should do a writeup of this topic. The group was interested
in working on this subject and it is also included in the re-chartering
process. Here is the document:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-psap-callback-00.txt

Since this work is still at a very early stage we would highly appreciate
feedback to make basic design decisions. 

Ciao
Hannes

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of Elwell, John
>Sent: 19 August, 2009 19:57
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: Theis, Harald (Harald); John Fenn; Hammer, Bernard; 
>Vautz,Rolf (Rolf); Dietz, J.B. (Jan)
>Subject: [Ecrit] Ecma-International work on emergency calls in 
>enterprisenetworks
>
>Generation Corporate Networks (NGCN), including interoperation 
>with NGN, Ecma-International has carried out investigations 
>into emergency calling in enterprise networks, and a 
>near-final draft of the resulting Technical Report is available here:
>
>The report draws heavily on the work of ECRIT. Any comments on 
>the draft would be appreciated. We hope to finalise it during 
>the second half of September.
>
>John
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:41:05 +0100

Hannes,

Thanks for your initial feedback and your willingness to do a more
detailed review. 

> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 21 August 2009 07:40
> To: Elwell, John; [email-masked]
> Cc: 'Theis, Harald (Harald)'; 'John Fenn'; Hammer, Bernard; 
> 'Vautz,Rolf (Rolf)'; 'Dietz, J.B. (Jan)'
> Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Ecma-International work on emergency 
> calls in enterprisenetworks
> 
> Hi John, 
> 
[JRE] Certainly there will be enterprise-specific emergency services. In
some enterprise networks it might be sufficient to use the existing
service URNs, and simply route to the appropriate private emergency
response centre rather than to a PSAP, but if there are enterprises
where the user may have a choice (e.g., could dial an enterprise
emergency code or 112), this would suggest the need for separate URNs.
See what you think when you have reviewed the relevant section. We
certainly would appreciate wider input to this question. Another
question is who will want to register these additional URNs - individual
enterprises for their own purposes, particular industries, or simply
generic ones registered by Ecma, say.

> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5031.txt
[JRE] Perhaps appropriate if the new values do not overlap with existing
values, e.g., I cannot recall whether there is an existing value for an
emergency in an oil refinery or chemical plant.

> rechartering process is currently ongoing. 
[JRE] Noted.

> So, it depends on your scenarios. 
[JRE] I had missed that - I will investigate.

> your document to figure out what your arguments are. 
[JRE] Noted.

> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-psap-callback-00.txt
[JRE] Yes, I was aware of that.

> feedback to make basic design decisions. 
[JRE] I will investigate.

John

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:40:16 +0300

Hi John, 

>Hannes,
>
>Thanks for your initial feedback and your willingness to do a 
>more detailed review. 
>
>> Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Ecma-International work on emergency calls in 
>> enterprisenetworks
>> 
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> I browsed through it and it looked pretty good. I will have some 
>> comments once I do a detailed review.
>> 
>> For now I just wanted to quickly respond to the standardization gaps 
>> that are listed in the document:
>> 
>> ------
>> defined for use where enterprise-specific emergency services need to 
>> be identified separately from public emergency services.
>> ------
>> 
>> First, there is the question whether you really need this. I 
>will have 
>> to read through the document in more detail to get an understanding.
>[JRE] Certainly there will be enterprise-specific emergency 
>services. In some enterprise networks it might be sufficient 
>to use the existing service URNs, and simply route to the 
>appropriate private emergency response centre rather than to a 
>PSAP, but if there are enterprises where the user may have a 
>choice (e.g., could dial an enterprise emergency code or 112), 
>this would suggest the need for separate URNs.
>See what you think when you have reviewed the relevant 
>section. We certainly would appreciate wider input to this 
>question. Another question is who will want to register these 
>additional URNs - individual enterprises for their own 
>purposes, particular industries, or simply generic ones 
>registered by Ecma, say.

Please note that the usage of enterprise specific emergency services
numbers does not require new Service URNs to get registered. It requires
additional entries in the LoST database. 

>
>> 
>> Let's assume you do need additional service URNs then there 
>are a few 
>> ways to get them:
>> 
>[JRE] Perhaps appropriate if the new values do not overlap 
>with existing values, e.g., I cannot recall whether there is 
>an existing value for an emergency in an oil refinery or 
>chemical plant.

When you define a new Service URN you would expect a different routing
behavior. 
So, why would you route an emergency call related that happens  in an
oil refinery or 
chemical plant differently than another emergency call? 

We once had a discussion already a related topic when someone suggested
that we should define one service URN for calls that involve a murder,
another one when they involve a  robbery, etc. I believe it would be
very difficult for the user to make that differentiation. 

Please note that the emergency call routing has nothing todo with the
way how the dispatch happens. First responders would obviously react
differently (but that's a different story) in the above-mentioned cases.

>
>> 
>> * You could define new to-top level service URNs Since a number of 
>> folks in the group wanted to do that we started the 
>discussion around 
>> relaxing the policy from 'Standards Action'
>> (as defined in
>> The usage scenario in NENA is, however, different. There, folks want 
>> to use their own Service URNs within the ESINet.
>> 
>> STANDARDISATION GAP 2 (see 6.2.2.2.2): There is no 
>standardised means 
>> of conveying information on position relative to access 
>points in SIP.
>> ------
>> 
>> If I recall it correctly then the main question by some folks in the 
>> GEOPRIV group was whether this is really so useful. I again have to 
>> read through your document to figure out what your arguments are.
>[JRE] Noted.
>
>> 
>> ------
>> STANDARDISATION GAP 3 (see 6.4.3): There is currently no reliable 
>> means of identifying a return call from an ERC.
>> ------
>> 
>> We had chats about this topic in ECRIT for a long time and then 
>> finally decided that we should do a writeup of this topic. The group 
>> was interested in working on this subject and it is also included in 
>> the re-chartering process. Here is the document:
>> Since this work is still at a very early stage we would highly 
>> appreciate feedback to make basic design decisions.

More feedback later. 

Ciao
Hannes

>> >From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
>> >Behalf Of Elwell, John
>> >Cc: Theis, Harald (Harald); John Fenn; Hammer, Bernard; Vautz,Rolf 
>> >(Rolf); Dietz, J.B. (Jan)
>> >Generation Corporate Networks (NGCN), including interoperation with 
>> >NGN, Ecma-International has carried out investigations into 
>emergency 
>> >calling in enterprise networks, and a near-final draft of the 
>> >resulting Technical Report is available here:
>> >
>> >The report draws heavily on the work of ECRIT. Any comments on the 
>> >draft would be appreciated. We hope to finalise it during 
>the second 
>> >half of September.
>> >
>> >John

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:53:04 -0400

I believe the way we envisioned things with enterprises boiled down to three
things:

A) In most jurisdictions, for most enterprises it is a VERY BAD IDEA to send
emergency calls to some local responder.  In some jurisdictions, for most
enterprises, it's illegal.

B) Where doing that is the right idea: an airport with its own fire, police
and EMS services on site for example, the way we expect it would be done is
to have the actual LoST service have the correct entry.  This means, for
example, that a call from a mobile phone from the airport would get routed
correctly.  If calls should go somewhere within the enterprise, then ALL
calls should go there

C) Despite the above two, we know that some enterprises will do the wrong
thing.  The way to do that is to have a local LoST server with the routing
the way the enterprise wants it.  Of course, not all services would discover
that LoST server, but the ones they really care about would

Brian

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:17:07 +0100

Hannes,

Sorry for the anticipated delay in this reaching you, due to travelling.
See below. 

> From: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 23 August 2009 17:40
> To: Elwell, John; Hannes Tschofenig; [email-masked]
[JRE] Certainly. This would be the way of achieving routing to an
enterprise ERC if, for a given emergency service URN in a given
location, the enterprise operator requires use of the enterprise ERC
rather than the PSAP. What we are talking about with this issue is
whether there are different service types that enterprises might
require. Personally I am not totally convinced of the need, but some of
my colleagues in Ecma thought this would be a strong possibility.

> differently (but that's a different story) in the 
[JRE] I agree with what you say, but that doesn't really address the
point. Suppose a given enterprise has an ERC for dealing with medical
emergencies on enterprise premises. We could use the normal service URN
for medical emergencies and rely on the LoST query to cause routing to
the enterprise ERC. But then there is no way of making a call from the
enterprise to the PSAP that deals with medical emergencies. Some
contributors to the Ecma work thought this might be needed in some
cases. This presumably is based on knowledge of how legacy enterprise
networks sometimes are set up for emergency calls, with difference dial
strings for accessing private ERC and PSAP.

John