Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Rough location vs. HELD extension for Germany and ETSI

From: Laura Liess <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:38:06 +0200

Hi Mark,

> I was thinking about the case where a UA from another country, like the
> USA, roams into Germany and uses a VSP that is not part of the German
> domain of VSPs?  (not part of the German domain of VSPs = doesn't
> understand the unique German procedure(s))

This is exactly the reason why we brought up this proposal, as a trial
to achieve worldwide interoperability.   But  there is no regulatory
requirement for worldwide emergency calls,   it's just "nice to have".

We have two alternatives for what happens in your use case, depending
on how Ecrit deals with the new proposal:

1) The architecture proposal is accepted in ecrit as an alternative.
HELD is extended to return the ESRP URI and  the phonepcb is extended,
too. So, the US VSPs support these architecture and HELD extenssion
and the emergency calling would work for them in Germany/EU .

2) The architecture proposal  and HELD extenssion are rejected in
ecrit, they are valid just for Germany/ EU.  In this case any VSP
which have an SLA with a German VoIP carrier will have to support the
German architecture and HELD extenssion per regulatory requirements.
If the VSP does not support the German/EU procedure, the emergency
calling will not work. As I said, nobody cares about it.

Note: DT already submitted the proposal to TISPAN . We think some
other EU carriers which have the same problem in their country, our
and their SIP vendors and the German regulator will support this
proposal. Maybe other countries without dedicated emergency calling
infrastruchture and budget as US  will follow this model because it
minimizes the costs and implementation time.

Thanks a lot
Laura

> Thanks,
> -Marc-