[Sipconnectit] [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect v1.1 changes for emergency services

[Brian Rosen]

Yes, that's correct.  Anything the originator needs can be put in Contact; the PSAP will copy the string in it's entirety.

Brian

On Apr 2, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Asveren, Tolga wrote:

> I assume that we can rely on the URI parameters present in the Contact of the original call being present in the Request-URI of the subsequent call though. Does anybody see any problem/risk on this one?
>  
> Thanks,
> Tolga
>  
> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br at brianrosen.net] 
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:06 PM
> To: Asveren, Tolga
> Cc: Hadriel Kaplan; sipconnectit at sipforum.org; techwg at sipforum.org; Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); Martin Thomson
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect v1.1 changes for emergency services
>  
> It's a new call, so I don't think that would be possible.
>  
> Brian
>  
> On Apr 2, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Asveren, Tolga wrote:
> 
> 
> Can we rely on route set entries from the original call to be used for such a subsequent call?
>  
> Thanks,
> Tolga
>  
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:46 AM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: sipconnectit at sipforum.org; techwg at sipforum.org; Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); Martin Thomson
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect v1.1 changes for emergency services
>  
>  
> OK, I'll add some wording to that effect.  What happens if the target Contact fails (e.g., isn't reachable) - should the SIP-PBX route it to any contact for the same AoR, a default AoR/number (e.g., a main number), or just reject it and let the PSAP re-try to another target?
>  
> -hadriel
>  
>  
> On Apr 2, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> One requirement that it occurs to me we may not have touched on is call back: the call must contain a globally routable Contact that reaches the device, and that contact must remain valid for several minutes beyond the end of the call to allow a callback in the case of a  pre-mature disconnect.
>  
> Brian
>  
> On Apr 1, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Howdy,
> At last week's IETF meeting in Paris, a meeting was held between several folks who participated in the creation of SIPconnect v1.1, and folks involved in NENA and EENA emergency services.  
> 
> Based on that discussion, we believe the changes to SIPconnect v1.1 boil down to the following:
> 1) The SP-SSE must support the sos URN, in addition to the currently required support for the basic digit string.  No requirements are placed on the SIP-PBX.
> 
> 2) The SP-SSE must not reject SIP messages containing multipart MIME bodies, for emergency services.  What the SSP does with them internally is beyond the scope of SIPconnect.  No requirements are placed on the SIP-PBX.
> 
> 3) The SP-SSE must not reject SIP messages containing the Call-Info, Geolocation, or Geolocation-Routing header fields, for emergency services.  What the SSP does with them internally is beyond the scope of SIPconnect.  No requirements are placed on the SIP-PBX.
> 
> 4) The SIP-PBX must not indicate REFER method support in the Allow header field, if it does not actually support REFER-based call transfer from the SSP.
> 
> The attached SIPconnect 1.1b v1 document is a first draft for documenting those changes.
> 
> It also makes the changes for the security issue identified by Olle Johansson in a previous email to this mailing list, whereby a REGISTER for an unknown AoR should be treated the same as a REGISTER for a valid/known AoR, for obvious reasons. (we had actually identified that issue before as well, but didn't fix it for some reason)
> 
> -hadriel
> 
>  
> 
> <SIPconnect 1.1b v1.doc>
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sipforum.org/pipermail/sipconnectit/attachments/20120402/c2030cde/attachment-0001.html