Re: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA

Hannes -

A really interesting question - especially from the perspective of location
payloads and location provision. We in the OGC struggle with this issue on a
regular basis. This is perhaps why the OGC has formal agreements with about
a dozen SDOs and other organizations that develop specifications in the
location/geospatial space. And even with lots of coordination and
collaboration, sometimes folks go their own way - which plays havoc with
consistent architecture and infrastructure. And we find new efforts cropping
up on a regular basis.

That said, from a standards "professional" perspective, I am very pleased
with how the IETF GeoPRIV collaboration and standard work is progressing. I
know that there is a bit of concern about discord in some of the recent
discussions . . . but compared to some standards discussions I have
witnessed over the years, the ones in the GeoPRIV WG are consistently
professional and well mannered!

Regards

Carl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com>
To: "Dawson, Martin" <Martin.Dawson@andrew.com>; "DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS"
<mdolly@att.com>; "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>; "GEOPRIV"
<geopriv@ietf.org>; "ECRIT" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:57 AM
Subject: AW: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA

> Hi Martin,
>
> Thanks for the quick response.
>
> I am trying to figure out what the impact to the Internet is if many SDOs
> develop their own specifications for emergency services without
> considering the NENA work and I am particularly referring to the SDOs that
> potentially impact real networks.
>
> More comments below:
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Dawson, Martin [mailto:Martin.Dawson@andrew.com]
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. März 2007 12:47
>> An: Tschofenig, Hannes; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; Hannes
>> Tschofenig; GEOPRIV; ECRIT
>> Betreff: RE: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA
>>
>> I think Martin (the other Martin, not me) meant that ATIS
>> works with NENA specifications. NENA is not an accredited SDO
>> - in the same sense, for example, that ATIS is accredited and
>> able to publish American National Standards. Of course, that
>> doesn't prevent NENA from publishing referencable documents.
>> The E2 interface specification used for wireless E-9-1-1 is a
>> NENA document and, as ever, the i2 architecture specification
>> is a NENA document.
>>
>> I don't think there's anything prescriptive about how the
>> work of NENA interacts with other SDOs. I think it's best
>> understood in terms of the general role of NENA - which is to
>> provide a national consensus view on how the elements of the
>> emergency service fit together. This ends up covering
>> everything from devices through access and core networks, and
>> into the emergency network elements - the routers, call
>> centers, and ALI and ANI databases.
>>
>> This is particularly important in an environment such as the
>> US which is extremely devolved with multiple independent
>> parties operating at every level and every function. Without
>> a body like NENA it would all deteriorate into chaos -
>> despite how it seems to some, that's not what it is now. :)
>>
>> It's good to look at a case study.
>>
>> NENA had a lot of influence on, for example, the TIA
>> J-STD-036 specification for phase 2 wireless which
>> subsequently formed the deployment model for how the FCC
>> mandate for wireless E-9-1-1 should be satisfied. This
>> consequently had an impact on 3GPP/2.
>
>>From the last SDO workshop I got the impression that the 3GPP2 actually
>>had nothing expect for a few high-level requirements. Since a lot of the
>>3GPP2 work is taken from 3GPP it might well be possible that they also
>>recycle the emergency services work.
>
> Maybe they have developed a solution already. Maybe you can point to the
> relevant documents.
>
> There are even
>> parameters in the 3GPP MAP specification called NA-ESRK and
>> NA-ESRD (the NA part stands for North American) - though they
>> do actually have generic utility.
>
> But the NENA work is more than just these parameters.
>
>>
>> A typical chain of influence would go along the lines that US
>> carriers need to meet some regulatory requirement for which
>> definitions originating or influenced by NENA form the model
>> for deployment. The carriers need their vendors to support
>> the functionality associated with the model. Both the vendors
>> and the carriers participate in the SDOs governing the
>> specifications for the network elements involved and
>> subsequently influence what those specifications look like.
>> To a large extent, artefacts turn up in SDO specifications as
>> an extended phenotype of the significance and influence of
>> the US market and the role of NENA in that market.
>
> But it is not really good if the NENA work does not appear in the
> standardization work of other SDOs.
>
>>
>> Does that make sense? I'm not aware that there are any strict
>> definitions for the relationship between NENA and other SDOs.
> It makes sense but to me it looks like the recipe for a non-working global
> emergency service solution since there are too many players involved that
> want to develop their own story.
>
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tschofenig, Hannes [mailto:hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2007 9:31 PM
>> To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; Hannes Tschofenig; GEOPRIV; ECRIT
>> Subject: AW: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> what do you mean by "ATIS"?
>>
>> You mean that ATIS is using the NENA architecture or I should
>> have included ATIS in the list of SDOs?
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> > Von: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS [mailto:mdolly@att.com]
>> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. März 2007 11:28
>> > An: Hannes Tschofenig; GEOPRIV; ECRIT
>> > Betreff: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA
>> >
>> > ATIS
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]
>> > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:41 AM
>> > To: GEOPRIV; ECRIT
>> > Subject: [Ecrit] NENA
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I would like to better understand the work done by NENA.
>> >
>> > Which SDOs are going to make use (or is already used) of the
>> > work done
>> > by NENA?
>> >
>> > Consider the following SDOs, as an example
>> > - 3GPP
>> > - 3GPP2
>> > - Wimax
>> > - Wifi Alliance
>> > - DSL Forum
>> > - ETSI TISPAN
>> > - CableLabs
>> >
>> > Since there is often a mismatch between the standards being
>> > developed in
>> >
>> > these SDOs I would like to also understand how the NENA work
>> > going to be
>> >
>> > used on the Internet?
>> >
>> > Ciao
>> > Hannes
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Ecrit mailing list
>> > Ecrit@ietf.org
>> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------
>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may
>> contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
>> If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
>> immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
>> this email is prohibited.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------
>> [mf2]
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:53:02 -0600