Seems like kind of a false distinction -- if the network doesn't know
you, it doesn't know you. Are you envisioning anonymous users that
*won't* be allowed emergency call access?
--Richard
On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:29 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
The goal is to provide a specific "emergency only" network access,
rather than anonymous access. Indeed, anonymity is typically not the
goal. As a hotel operator, I might be happy to provide emergency
call access even to non-guests, but clearly don't want to free
Internet access to the neighborhood. Thus, I think that the "sos"
NAI in the short term, along with non-subscription-based access
right token for emergency calling longer term, is a reasonable
direction.
Henning
On Mar 23, 2010, at 1:23 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
In particular, providing unauthenticated *network* access is a
prerequisite for providing unauthenticated *VoIP* access.
Also, Bernard: Does your below mention of "anonymous" NAI indicate
that there is actually a reserved NAI "anonymous"? If so, then I
don't really see the use for a separate "sos" NAI -- you can just
provide ECRIT access to "anonymous".
--Richard
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
