Re: [Geopriv] (dis)connects in the location by reference discussion

Henning Schulzrinne schrieb:
>>
>> c) Given that my limited understand of NENA i2 (as stated above) is
>> correct, perhaps the opponents of LbyR for NENA i2 should attempt to
>> offer an alternative that uses LbyV that works with NENA i2.
>
> A trivial alternative is that the "LIS" is operated by the VSP. The
> data in the LIS is maintained by the VSP, based on by-value data
> provided by the end system.
that is not good enough in the general case - the VSP cannot reliably
detect location without the L1/2 operator

not just a conjecture, I checked that already over here: this approach
would not get regulatory OK in Austria for using geographic numbers

This is however a key reason why VSP's want exact location since that
has substantial business impact

-Michael
>
> I suspect there are many other solutions, depending on the assumptions
> on the VPC. In particular, in some cases, I can imagine that the
> location dereferencing function disappears altogether, without
> changing the remainder of the architecture. After all, the PSAP does
> not do an IP-deref
>
> The problem with citing the i2 example is that it needs to solve four
> problems:
>
> (1) Current IP phones and ATAs do not include location in their
> signaling messages.
>
> (2) PSAPs can't be modified.
>
> (3) PSAPs need to deal with both traditional and VoIP calls in exactly
> the same manner.
>
> (4) The PSTN side (selective routers and all the rest) can't be modified.
>
> All of these are transient issues, and some of the LbyR motivation is
> primarily driven by (1), not (2) to (4).
>
> Henning
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:23:14 +0200