1 / 6

IETF – ECRIT Emergency Context Resolution using Internet Technologies

IETF – ECRIT Emergency Context Resolution using Internet Technologies. ESW 5 – Vienna October 2008 Marc Linsner. The IETF .

steel-monroe
Download Presentation

IETF – ECRIT Emergency Context Resolution using Internet Technologies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IETF – ECRITEmergency Context Resolution using Internet Technologies ESW 5 – Vienna October 2008 Marc Linsner

  2. The IETF • The IETF working groups are grouped into areas, and managed by Area Directors, or ADs. The ADs are members of the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Providing architectural oversight is the Internet Architecture Board, (IAB). • The IAB also adjudicates appeals when someone complains that the IESG has failed. The IAB and IESG are chartered by the Internet Society (ISOC) for these purposes. The General Area Director also serves as the chair of the IESG and of the IETF, and is an ex-officio member of the IAB.

  3. ECRIT Charter • “…The group will show how the availability of location data and call • routing information at different steps in session setup would enable • communication between a user and a relevant emergency response • center. Though the term "call routing" is used in this document, it • should be understood that some of the mechanisms which will be • described might be used to enable other types of media streams. Video • and text messaging, for example, might be used to request emergency • services. • While this group anticipates a close working relationship with groups • such as NENA and ETSI EMTEL, any solution presented must be useful • regardless of jurisdiction, and it must be possible to use without a • single, central authority. Further, it must be possible for multiple • delegations within a jurisdiction to be handled independently, as call • routing for specific emergency types may be independent. • This working group cares about privacy and security concerns, and will • address them within its documents.”

  4. Completed Work • Requirements for Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies (RFC 5012) • A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Emergency and Other Well-Known Services (RFC 5031) • Security Threats and Requirements for Emergency Call Marking and Mapping (RFC 5069) • LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (RFC 5222) • Discovering Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Servers Using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) (RFC 5223)

  5. In-Progress Work • Location-to-URL Mapping Architecture and Framework • ‘Framework Draft’ • Best Current Practice for Communications Services in support of Emergency Calling • PhoneBCP • Last remaining issue is Calling Party Hold • A Design Team is being formed to address this issue • Framework for Emergency Calling using Internet Multimedia • Location Hiding: Problem Statement and Requirements • Specifying Holes in LoST Service Boundaries • Synchronizing Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Servers

  6. Future • Maintain LoST • New extensions • Maintenance from implementations • Authority to Citizen • Currently a BOF for the upcoming Minneapolis • BOF is a charter proposal for a new WG • An IESG decision whether to start a new WG or let ECRIT do it.

More Related