110 likes | 459 Views
Protocol Details from 3GPP TS 24.229. SDO Emergency Services Coordination Workshop (ESW06) Columbia University, New York October 5-6, 2006. Atle Monrad, Ericsson Mobile Platform (atle.monrad@ericsson.com). Stage-3 specification ’philosophy’.
E N D
Protocol Details from 3GPP TS 24.229 SDO Emergency Services Coordination Workshop (ESW06) Columbia University, New York October 5-6, 2006 Atle Monrad, Ericsson Mobile Platform (atle.monrad@ericsson.com)
Stage-3 specification ’philosophy’ • 3GPP TS 24.229 specifies the involved IMS entities • Reference relevant IETF-RFCs • Profile RFCs if only parts are supported • Specify additions and limitations • Work is ongoing and is planned to be completed by mid-2007
Involved entities • UE - User Equipment • Proxy-CSCF • Serving-CSCF • Emergency-CSCF
UE – User equipment • Performs registration to the home IMS network • The emergency call is handled in the visiting network, thus a dedicated emergency registration is needed when the terminal can move out of the home network • Decides whether CS or IMS domain shall be used for initial emergency call attempts • Can perform emergency call without SIM/UICC • Open issues:- when is a dedicated emergency registration needed?- How to indicate that location is not available?- How to transfer the equipment identifier?
Proxy-CSCF • Is the initial point for communication with terminals • Is access-agnostic • Open issues:- when is a dedicated emergency registration needed?- How can the P-CSCF discover whether the terminal is in the home network?
Serving-CSCF • Is the central point in the home network handling the subscriber • Involved for emergency calls due to differences between normal registrations and emergency registrations • Open issues:- No major
Emergency-CSCF • Is the interface towards the PSAP • Open issues:- How to mark an emergency session after the PSAP address has been resolved between the E-CSCF - PSAP and the E-CSCF - MGCF?- The use of the Resource-Priority header?- MGCF interworking; any regulatory requirements?
Other issues • Where shall the requirements on the PSAP be specified? • Call-back from the PSAP is currently not included. • The location is in current deployment often based on A-number and cell-identity. Should LOST also consider these as ’valid locations’, as existing databases in many cases are based on this?