Even for location delivery, there's not that much to say at the standards
layer.

For *delivery*, the story is the same as with signaling.  Either the RTCWeb
VoIP service can translate the location information to comply with RFC
6442, or the PSAP can just build a web app that collects it however it
likes.

For *determination*, it's about the browser.  You can do browser-based
geolocation today, to "OK" quality.  Or the browser could implement the
GEOPRIV protocols to benefit from network-provided location.

All that's about implementation/deployment though.  I don't really see any
new standards there.

--Richard



On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Henning Schulzrinne
<[email protected]>wrote:

> The most difficult part for any emergency calling system is location
> delivery. WebRTC probably doesn't have much impact on emergency calls if
> all the calls traverse a server of some kind and if the caller location can
> be looked up based on caller IP addresses, but once you have the end system
> involved in location determination (e.g., for mobile devices or for
> DHCP-delivered location), it has to know when a call is an emergency call
> as you otherwise end up providing location for every call, which is
> non-ideal from a privacy and battery perspective.
>
> At least in the US, many of the WebRTC services would be considered
> "interconnected VoIP", so they are indeed subject to 911 obligations.
>
> Henning
>
> On May 26, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Indeed, there has already been some coordination between the groups, going
> back about a year:
> <http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/84/slides/slides-84-ecrit-0.pdf>
> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-aboba-rtcweb-ecrit-00.txt>
>
> So my read of the situation is much less dire than James's.  As I
> understand it, the upshot of the initial coordination discussions is that
> there's not a single, clear "RTCWEB+ECRIT" story.  Instead, there are a few
> ways you can put them together.  In the short run, without upgrading PSAPs,
> RTCWEB VoIP services can bridge RTCWEB signaling to ECRIT-compliant SIP,
> either at the server, or at the client using something like
> SIP-over-WebSockets.  In the long run, PSAPs can just advertise an RTCWEB
> service like they would advertise a SIP service today (in LoST).  Neither
> of these is incompatible with RTCWEB or ECRIT as they're being specified
> today.
>
> I expect there are probably some ECRIT considerations that aren't
> naturally supported in RTCWEB.  Things like real-time text come to mind.
>  However, it doesn't seem to me that there's gross incompatibility.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, John C Klensin <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --On Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:10 +0300 Jari Arkko
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >...
>> > I didn't know about the details of the emergency
>> > communications situation. But it is always difficult to
>> > balance getting something out early vs. complete. I know how
>> > much pressure there is on the working groups to keep up with
>> > things actually happening in the browsers and organisations
>> > setting up to use this technology. Do you think the retrofit
>> > will be problematic, and do you have a specific suggestion
>> > about what should be included today?
>>
>> Jari,
>>
>> James will probably have a different answer and perspective, but
>> I suggest that retrofits of security-sensitive features are so
>> often problematic to make "always" not much of an exaggeration.
>>
>> I don't think there is any general solution to the "early vs.
>> complete" tradeoff [1], nor, as long as we keep trying to deal
>> with things as collections of disconnected pieces rather than
>> systems, to the issues created by WGs with significant overlaps
>> in either scope or technology.  What I think we can do is to be
>> particularly vigilant to be sure that the two WGs are tracking
>> and frequently reviewing each other's work.   At least RTCWEB
>> and ECRIT are in the same area, which should make that
>> coordination easier than it might be otherwise.
>>
>>    john
>>
>>
>> [1] Watch for a note about this that I've been trying to
>> organize for about two weeks and hope to finish and post this
>> weekend.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to