Subject: [Ecrit] Status with the work in ECRIT

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:18:34 +0300

Hi all,

We wanted to provide you a short status update of the work in ECRIT. 

In August we proposed the text for the new charter, see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06663.html

And after the deadline expired we submitted it to our AD so that it gets
discussed in the IESG conf. call. Unfortunately, it turned out that a
charter approval would come too late for the next meeting (with regard to
the draft submission deadlines). 

Hence, we had a chat (Marc, Cullen, Robert and myself) to chat about the
individual items and to determine whether they can be submitted without a
re-chartering activitiy. 
We also spoke about the charter overall. The feedback from our Ads regarding
the charter was that they see it as a bit too open-ended and hence want us
to make it more restrictive. We will do that. 

Regarding the documents we had the following discussion: 

Oct 2009 Submit "IANA Registering a SIP RPH Namespace for Local
Emergency Communications" to the IESG for consideration as a Standards
Track RFC

--> This is an item that requires rechartering and Marc will discuss a few
questions on the list, namely
  * Where will it be used? 
  * Why is it needed? 
  * How is it secured? 

Cullen and Robert expect problems in the IESG with this document and hence
they would like to get some of the questions being addressed already in the
working group (rather at an IESG review later). 

Dec 2009 Submit "LoST ServiceListBoundary Extension" to the IESG for
consideration as an Experimental RFC 

-> This is OK within the current charter but the suggested wording for the
milestone has to be changed to make it more understandable. 

Dec 2009 Submit "Registry Policy Update to RFC 5031" to the IESG for
consideration as a Standards Track RFC

-> The text will have to be changed to "Update IANA consideration procedures
for Service URN allocation (RFC 5031)" and it is believed to be OK within
the current charter. Nevertheless, Cullen wants to check with the other Ads
whether they agree with it. 
So, at the moment it will not be added to the charter. 

Jan 2010 Submit "Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST)
Extensions" to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC

--> This document clearly goes beyond the emergency services use case. The
suggestion was made (and I like that idea) that the ECRIT group would do
reviews and the AD would shepherd the document as an Experimental RFC. 

Another option that is always possible for any extension that does not fit
into the scope of the ECRIT charter can be submitted to DISPATCH. What this
means from a time schedule point of view I don't know. 

May 2010 Submit "Marking of Calls initiated by Public Safety Answering
Points (PSAPs)" to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC

--> Cullen suggested to re-phrase it so that the call-back aspect is more
visible (rather than touching on the generic authority-to-citizen
communication topic). He believes that the document is not yet ready for a
WG item since the group has not decided on one of the solutions in the
document yet. Hannes got the action item to discuss the described solution
approaches with the group and to pick one. 

May 2010 Submit "Emergency Services Architecture Extensions for
Unauthenticated and Unauthorized Devices" to the IESG for consideration
as an Experimental RFC

--> We need to add a paragraph to the charter describing this task.  

Mar 2010 Submit "Using Imprecise Location for Emergency Context
Resolution" to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC

--> This document falls under the current charter. 

Based on the above-mentioned comments we have submitted the following
milestone update to the IESG secretary:

---------

Done	  	Informational RFC containing terminology definitions and the
requirements
Done	  	An Informational document describing the threats and
security considerations
Done	  	A Standards Track RFC describing how to identify a session
set-up request is to an emergency response center
Done	  	A Standards Track RFC describing how to route an emergency
call based on location information
Done	  	An Informational document describing the Mapping Protocol
Architecture
Done	  	Submit 'Location Hiding: Problem Statement and Requirements'
to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC.
Done	  	Submit 'Framework for Emergency Calling using Internet
Multimedia' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC.
Done	  	Submit 'Best Current Practice for Communications Services in
support of Emergency Calling' to the IESG for consideration as a BCP
document
Oct 2009   Submit 'Synchronizing Location-to-Service Translation (LoST)
Protocol based Service Boundaries and Mapping Elements' to the IESG for
consideration as an Experimental RFC. 
Dec 2009   Submit "LoST Extension for returning Boundary Information for
Services" to the IESG for consideration as an Experimental RFC 
Mar 2010   Submit "Using Imprecise Location for Emergency Call Routing" to
the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC

----------

As you can see, it contains 2 new documents. 2 others might follow soon
(hopefully!).

Ciao
Hannes & Marc