Subject: [Ecrit] NENA

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:41:02 +0100

Hi all,

I would like to better understand the work done by NENA.

Which SDOs are going to make use (or is already used) of the work done 
by NENA?

Consider the following SDOs, as an example
- 3GPP
- 3GPP2
- Wimax
- Wifi Alliance
- DSL Forum
- ETSI TISPAN
- CableLabs

Since there is often a mismatch between the standards being developed in 
these SDOs I would like to also understand how the NENA work going to be 
used on the Internet?

Ciao
Hannes

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

---

From: "DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 05:28:02 -0500

ATIS 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:41 AM
To: GEOPRIV; ECRIT
Subject: [Ecrit] NENA

Hi all,

used on the Internet?

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:30:50 +0100

Hi Martin, 

what do you mean by "ATIS"?

You mean that ATIS is using the NENA architecture or I should have included ATIS in the list of SDOs? 

Ciao
Hannes

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. März 2007 11:28
> An: Hannes Tschofenig; GEOPRIV; ECRIT
> Betreff: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA
> 
> ATIS 
> 
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>

---

From: "DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:52:54 -0500

Yes 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tschofenig, Hannes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 6:31 AM
To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; Hannes Tschofenig; GEOPRIV; ECRIT
Subject: AW: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA

Hi Martin, 

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:33:29 -0400

I am the chair of the Long Term Definition Working Group in NENA.  We are
developing a specification currently entitled "Functional and Interface
Requirements for Next Generation 9-1-1 (i3)".  The central concept to i3 is
the Emergency Services IP Network, which is a managed IP network to which
all public safety agencies will be connected.  The ESInet, which WILL be
connected to the Internet, is the entry point for emergency calls, but it is
also used among public safety agencies to exchange calls and data.

The above referenced document has a defined scope.  That scope is the
interface for calls and asynchronous events from access networks (including
the Internet), and the 9-1-1 system, coming into the ESInet and things
within the ESInet itself.  After a transition period, ALL calls and events
will enter the ESInet through an i3 defined interface.  A succinct
definition of that interface is "SIP, with location and call back, routed by
LoST".  We may support other interfaces (e.g. XMPP).  There will be an
asynchronous event interface.  The scope does not include what happens
inside a PSAP, but does include the external interfaces it exposes and uses.

The working group is intimately familiar with, and attempts to work with
ecrit to make sure that the interface it defines aligns with the work of
ecrit.  The interface for multimedia calls will be SIP, and should conform
to the -framework and -phonebcp documents.  The scope of i3 is slightly
bigger than the edge of the ESInet, because it includes the "Emergency Call
Routing Function" (ECRF) which is the database callers use to route calls to
an Emergency Services Routing Proxy (ESRP) which sits at the edge of the
ESInet.  The ECRF will have a LoST interface.  

Any carrier who delivers calls via IP to a PSAP in North America, will be
required to use the NENA interface, since that is the only interface that
will be supported.  During transition, other interfaces may be supported,
and of course, existing interfaces will be supported for some time during
transition.  PSAPs presently define their interfaces, and carriers are
required to conform to them.  That will not change.  Carriers don't get to
make up their own interface and demand the PSAP conform to that.  On the
other hand, PSAPs, and NENA, don't get to tell carriers how to build their
networks.  We only define the interface, and, in this case, supply databases
for routing and validation.

A draft of the document was liaisoned to a number of SDOs for comments.  We
are reluctant to put the document on a public website, since it is just a
draft, and NENA policies to not permit drafts of its standards to be
publicly available.  I would have to get the group and NENA's concurrence,
but if there are members of ecrit who cannot get the document by another
path, I can probably arrange to email it to you.

LTD has, on a number of occasions, sent requirements to ecrit.  This has
been done in the usual informal way, as an email or an Internet Draft
submitted by an individual.  We discuss ecrit drafts in our meeting, achieve
consensus on what we would like to see happen, and delegate individuals to
pursue the changes we want.  Theresa Reese has recently been fulfilling that
role with respect to the LoST drafts. 

In the NENA division of labor, location for NG9-1-1 is the province of a
different working group (the "VoIP Location Working Group"), which has
different leadership, but similar style.  They mainly deal with geopriv.

While a formal liaison relationship with NENA is possible, I don't feel we
need one.  NENA, like IETF, can do formal liaisons, but the organization is
not an SDO, and doesn't really have a great process for liaisons.  It would
be nice to have a better way to get document drafts to IETF folks.

I hope this is a sufficient explanation of NENAs work on IP based interfaces
to emergency calls, the scope of its current work in that area, the way it
thinks it interacts with IETF, and how it expects its work product to be
used.  If you have any questions, I would be please to answer them.

Brian Rosen
Chair
Long Term Definition Working Group
VoIP/Packet Technical Committee
NENA

Note: This email is my personal opinion and does not represent any
discussions in NENA

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:30:59 -0400

> be nice to have a better way to get document drafts to IETF folks.

Brian,

The IETF has liaison relationships with organizations that are not  
typically classified as SDOs.  ICANN is a big example.  I would also  
disagree about NENA not being an SDO, as they appear to be publishing  
standards in the context of these conversations.  The standards may  
not be typical technical wire protocol specifications, but  
requirements can also be standards.  I just had a conversation with  
Roger Hixson about the possibility of a formal liaison, and he  
believes it to be appropriate.

-andy

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:41:47 -0400

Okay, just so you know what you are asking for.

For my group to send an email to the ecrit or geopriv list, we discuss it in
a conference call, we MAY (but often don't) pass around a draft, and we
designate some one to send it.

To get a liaison out, we fill out a form, hold a semi-official vote, send it
to the "tech lead team", which includes Roger.  They approve it, and then
Roger sends it.  So far, the average time to get through that process is
between one and three months, although everyone agrees that is ridiculous,
and we should be able to get it down to a couple of weeks.

So sure, we can have a formal liaison if you want one.

Brian

  _____  

From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:31 PM
To: Brian Rosen
Cc: 'Hannes Tschofenig'; 'GEOPRIV'; 'ECRIT'
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA

Brian,

The IETF has liaison relationships with organizations that are not typically
classified as SDOs. ICANN is a big example. I would also disagree about NENA
not being an SDO, as they appear to be publishing standards in the context
of these conversations. The standards may not be typical technical wire
protocol specifications, but requirements can also be standards. I just had
a conversation with Roger Hixson about the possibility of a formal liaison,
and he believes it to be appropriate.

-andy

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:56:40 -0400

On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:
> To get a liaison out, we fill out a form, hold a semi-official  
> vote, send it to the “tech lead team”, which includes Roger.  They  
> approve it, and then Roger sends it.  So far, the average time to  
> get through that process is between one and three months, although  
> everyone agrees that is ridiculous, and we should be able to get it  
> down to a couple of weeks.

All I ever wanted to do was write software.  How did I get myself  
into this mess?

-andy