[14:31:27] HannesTschofenig joins the room [14:35:30] milan0patel joins the room [14:36:11] HannesTschofenig leaves the room [19:12:12] milan0patel leaves the room [22:03:05] milan joins the room [22:20:38] Randall Gellens joins the room [22:23:22] agenda bashing [22:23:29] richard.barnes.scribe joins the room [22:23:41] hello everyone! i'll be your scribe today [22:23:48] anyone here who's not in the room? [22:24:28] hannes is going through the document status and recapping the virtual interim meeting [22:24:42] spencerdawkins joins the room [22:25:11] news: EENA (European Emergency Number Association) is going to start doing technical work, in coordination with NENA [22:25:19] DE has a new regulatory framework [22:26:16] richard.barnes.scribe leaves the room [22:26:22] i'm not in the room [22:26:40] how are you Richard/? [22:27:33] Ted Hardie joins the room [22:27:45] ray joins the room [22:28:57] richard.barnes.scribe joins the room [22:29:24] can people hear me? [22:29:31] (connection issues) [22:29:39] no, we can't hear you [22:29:45] great [22:29:46] ;-) [22:30:03] now discussing the "cellular applicability" issue [22:30:23] impression is that there's consensus not to add any sort of applicability statement [22:31:25] Hardie: Two comments [22:31:34] ysuzuki joins the room [22:31:51] 1. we do discuss backward compatibility. just of a different character [22:32:25] core design decision: client has to support everything; network supports one or more [22:32:38] need that to acheive interoperability [22:32:51] Brian: we do allow the network to, but don't require it [22:33:46] bhoeneis joins the room [22:33:49] Hardie: We're saying "this is how you should do it" [22:34:13] disconnect is that other people read it as "this is how you absolutely have to do it" [22:34:38] they're looking for a pointer to the other stuff that's deployed [22:34:48] Henning: Need to resolve this, think the opinions are out there [22:34:53] *rough* consensus [22:35:29] suggest that there be a call for consensus on this item [22:36:35] hardie: Could we have a liaison statement to 3GPP if there hasn't been one? [22:37:28] gellens: one core thing is that this document looks like a mandate, an applicability statement would make it clear that this isn't what's deployed [22:42:19] drage: phonebcp is probably ok, framework seems to think it exists as the only solution [22:42:34] boybinary@gmail.com/Meebo joins the room [22:42:36] barnes: we don't do this in other applications, we define something then define interworking with other stuff [22:43:02] (missed a comment from gellens0 [22:43:58] gellens said - framework implies that if an IP device wants to make emergency calls then ECRIT is the only way to do it [22:43:58] hardie: this is different from most things. usually we're working on piece parts, in this we're really focusing on universality [22:44:20] drage: we should say what the constraints are on who we expect to deploy this [22:44:28] (s/deploy/implement/) [22:45:25] peterson: don't agree that BCPs need to explicitly acknowledge other parts of the world [22:45:49] this defines compliance -- you're either compliant or you're not [22:46:05] hardie: the documents don't read that way right now, they read as if it's a universal requirement [22:46:46] henning: there are two issues here [22:46:56] 1. statments of fact, and 2. statements of desire by the wg [22:47:11] all ietf documents are essentially of the second kind [22:47:17] informed opinion [22:47:42] the content of the document reflects the desire of the wg for the future of emergency calling [22:48:17] if there's a technical deficiency, we should address it, not have disclaimers [22:48:56] a disclaimer isn't going to disabuse people of the spectre of protocol police [22:50:28] boybinary@gmail.com/Meebo leaves the room [22:50:58] this discussion is somewhat unreal... [22:51:03] lgrosselli joins the room [22:51:59] hum: "if you believe we need to add applicability statements to either or both document" [22:52:21] opposite hum 'fine in current state" [22:52:21] martin.thomson joins the room [22:52:52] no consensus declared, back to the list [22:53:34] If there has been a liaison statement to 3gpp on this, sending a pointer to it to the list would be a real help. I can't find one, but I am not sure I'm looking in the right place. [22:53:49] henning: lost-sync [22:54:33] two use cases: passing mappings up the tree and clustering [22:54:43] ted: it's likely that the attempts have been informal only [22:55:03] ted: namely, the Emergency Services Workshops and the ongoing 3GPP coordination telecons [22:55:20] henning: implementation in progress [22:55:21] Okay. Is there any chance of making it formal, just to close the loop? [22:55:59] Or putting it on an agenda of the coordination telecon and pushing the state on that to whatever the right 3gpp group is? [22:56:23] [i don't attend those telecons, so i don't know how they're managed] [22:56:40] Anyway, let's focus on Henning's talk--sorry to drag us back. [22:56:57] open questions: relationship to other sync mechanisms [22:57:50] distinct from DB sync things because those are usually single-vendor [22:59:16] hanning: U. Goettingen is also working on an implementation [22:59:58] hardie: LDAP experiences. we found that the big providers didn't want to implement it because they were afraid that people would buy their competitors' products [23:00:10] ==> let's get ahead of the vendors on this [23:00:59] Hmm, I'm on the record as saying that both in jabber and mp3. [23:01:06] henning: if there are no other comments, we can probably make -05 the last version [23:01:07] "Don't hurt me!" [23:01:47] James Polk: RPH [23:02:01] <--filling in for RIchard [23:02:17] on to changes for rph header slides [23:02:29] janet - concerns aren't addressed [23:02:48] janet going to mic [23:03:09] suzukisn joins the room [23:03:19] janet - problem lies in section 8, not sectionj 9 [23:03:55] james agrees to make the change [23:05:27] second concern resolved, no need for clarification to 4412 [23:07:00] janet - only minor issues, but will followup with james [23:07:48] james refers to Hannes as "him" [23:09:39] moving on to applicability slide - this is not different to previous decisions [23:10:57] richard presenting rough loc draft [23:11:10] nothing changed in the draft since the interim [23:12:38] document is in updated charter, but changes were needed before submission as a wg item [23:12:55] PORGASI joins the room [23:13:47] document might need to wait for phonebcp and framework to be published first [23:14:30] PORGASI has set the subject to: IETF 74 - San Francisco, Ecrit WG [23:19:47] to reiterate, the registry in sip-location-conveyance already exists as a repository for the "appropriate URI schemes" that need to be implemented [23:21:01] keith on sos parameter [23:21:58] Backward compatibility issue: registration will complete, but it won't be an emergency registration. [23:22:45] the MUST statement is removed [23:23:57] agenda bash - premature disconnect comes last [23:24:32] service urn policy [23:24:48] henning - standards action required is a little strong for registration [23:25:22] intro - need a policy on how to define new services [23:25:30] go to expert review in the draft [23:27:23] ted: sos needs to be kept at standards action [23:28:06] hum: no objections to making the change [23:28:27] ted wonders if this outcome means that the draft is adopted - hannes responds yes [23:29:00] extensions to the emergency services architecture for dealing unauthenticated/unauthorized devices [23:29:27] scenario classification - in garish colours [23:29:45] yellow is not a good colour for projectors [23:30:09] naa - no authentication or authorization [23:30:51] problem: how do you prevent fraud through this mechanism? [23:31:10] cases in venn diagram format - more yellow! [23:34:26] kastaspella@gmail.com/Meebo joins the room [23:34:59] s/optimistic/naive/ :) [23:35:39] ? [23:38:34] bernard aboba on mic [23:41:59] http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/03/02/bill-takes-aim-anonymous-hot-spots-coffee-shops [23:43:08] Quick hum on whether this is going in the right direction..... [23:43:28] Can the question be clearly put to the room please? [23:43:33] More hums for than against. [23:43:47] general agreement that the draft is heading in the right direction [23:44:07] moving on to call marking presentation [23:44:15] The draft document, or the draft stuff just posted to the list? [23:44:38] ks:the I-D [23:44:58] Ta [23:46:08] slide: complications [23:46:27] can't rely on From on the returned call [23:57:17] Who is in favor of doing work on PSAP callbacks? [23:57:28] hum: plenty of people who want to do this work, none (that I heard) against [23:57:32] hum [23:57:50] Brian Rosen on "Abandoned Call and Premature Disconnect"