Hi,
>>In 3GPP, it is true that the UE inserts the service URN into the
Request-URI.
>>
>>But, in the current specification the E-CSCF converts the URN into a
>>routable PSAP address, i.e. the mechanism in the loose-route draft is
>>not used.
>>
>>
>Why was this done?
I don't have all the details, but one reason was that the same
procedures were wanted towards a PSAP and an MGCF, and at least in the
previous 3GPP releases the MGCF does the called party number mapping
based on the Request-URI value. Also, since this was done a while ago,
the loose-route draft mechanism wasn't even discussed. Also, since
neither the PSAP or MGCF registers themselves to the E-CSCF, the
loose-route draft mechanism wouldn't be used towards those entities even
if adopted by IMS.
>Do you expect that the call uses a different emergency call marking
technique went it enters the PSAP operator network?
I think it is up to each operator to decide how the marking is done.
There will always be agreements between the PSAP operators and the other
("public") operators using them. I guess it would also be possible to
put the original service URN into the P-Called-Party-Id header (as for
normal calls), eventhough I don't think it's currently specified.
>Do you expect that the call is directly sent from the E-CSCF to the
PSAP and that there are no other hops in between?
I think both cases are applicable.
Regards,
Christer
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: 3. syyskuuta 2007 22:59
> >> To: Dean Willis
> >> Cc: IETF SIP List; ECRIT
> >> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Re: [Sip]
> >> draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01.txt
> >>
> >> Hi Dean,
> >>
> >> in ECRIT we assumed that the Request URI contains the
> service URN. We
> >> put that stuff into the Phone BCP document (which
> unfortunately still
> >> contains an error I just noticed).
> >> That's what we told the 3GPP in the past as well. Hence,
> they wrote
> >> it in their specs. See TS 24.229, Section 5.1.6.8.3, bullet (1).
> >>
> >> Within the ECRIT group we weren't aware that this issue
> has not been
> >> decided and hence we are a bit concerned about the recent change
> >> given that other SDOs followed our suggestion already.
> >>
> >> Do you have an idea what we should do now?
> >>
> >> Ciao
> >> Hannes
> >>
> >>
> >> Dean Willis wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> No response received -- resend.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dear SIP WG members,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> during the ECRIT meeting we learned that the SIP working group
> >>>>> "rejected" the concept described in
> >>>>> draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01.txt.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Could someone please give us more information about this
> >>>>>
> >> decision as
> >>
> >>>>> it impacts the work we do in ECRIT?
> >>>>>
> >>> I wouldn't say that UA Loose Route was "rejected" so much
> >>>
> >> as "does not
> >>
> >>> yet have consensus".
> >>>
> >>> This is in part influenced by "WG doesn't seem to have a
> compelling
> >>> reason to make such a significant change."
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps ECRIT has a compelling reason?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Dean
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> >> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
> >>
> >>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
