Subject: [Ecrit] Comment on draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data

From: Laura Liess <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:11:00 +0100

Hi,

Sometimes national regulatory bodies have specific requirements about
additional data they want to be sent to the PSAP (this is the case in
Germany for the mobile networks). Also I hear from my colleagues in
3GPP that they would eventually need additional data for eCall.

I think it would be very usefull to have a mechanism which enables
national regulatory bodies and SDOs to add, in the future, new XML
elements, without having to write an RFC, but having to pass the new
XML elements through an IETF/ecrit expert review. (We have such kind
of extension mechanism in RFC 5774 for civic adresses.)
If we don't do that, different countries will use different, often
inappropriate SIP-headers to carry the data required by the local
regulation. (I know about such discussions in Germany.) I think we
should try to avoid this to happen.

Thanks a lot
Laura

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:58:17 -0400

Good idea.  If we have no objection, we'll add it to the next draft.

Brian

On Mar 23, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Laura Liess wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Marc Linsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 11:14:44 -0400

+1

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:13:45 -0700

I wonder which mechanism would be best for this:  Additional 
namespaces in the XML, or additional MIME types?  I can see 
advantages to both approaches.  I wonder if it depends on the use 
case?  A use case which adds a small number of elements closely 
associated with existing ones seems very well-suited for a namespace 
in the XML.  A use case (such as eCall) that defines a self-contained 
block of data might make more sense as its own MIME type.  As the 
draft says, multiple MIME types are expected, wrapped in a MULTIPART 
type.  Maybe both should be permitted?

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Never precede any demo by a comment more predictive than "Watch this!".

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:59:58 +0200

Hi Laura, 

I fully understand your point. 

I think it is useful for us to think about these types of extensibility stories already as early as possible. 

Ciao
Hannes