Subject: [rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case and requirement document, “Emergency Services”

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:01:09 +0200

This relates to the comments to the WG last call of the use-cases and 
requirements document [1].

The topic in this mail is Emergency Services. This was discussed in [2] 
- [16] (i hope I found all the relevant mails, please correct me if I 
missed any), and my conclusion is that we should not add specific 
use-cases or requirements for Emergency Services.

Stefan

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06136.html

[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06160.html

[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06226.html
[4] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06227.html
[5] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06229.html
[6] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06231.html
[7] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06232.html
[8] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06239.html
[9] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06230.html
[10] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06237.html
[11] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06242.html
[12] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06243.html
[13] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06244.html
[14] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06246.html
[15] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06267.html
[16] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06268.html

---

From: Gunnar Hellstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:58:27 +0200

I see a need to create a whole new strand of documents standardizing 
"application of RTCWEB".

It would contain items that are not directly linked to details of the 
media streams standardized in rtcweb, but are important in apparent 
applications of the technology.
It would contribute to the ambition to not create silos.

Emergency service access is mainly one such application area.

RFC 6881 says:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SP-1: If a device or application expects to be able to place a call for 
help, the service provider that supports it MUST facilitate emergency 
calling. Some jurisdictions have regulations governing this.

ED-2: Devices that create media sessions and exchange real-time audio, 
video, and/or text and that have the capability to establish sessions to 
a wide variety of addresses and communicate over private IP networks or 
the Internet SHOULD support emergency calls. Some jurisdictions have 
regulations governing this.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

These requirements will clearly apply to some rtcweb applications, and 
it will be important to both remind rtcweb implementers about them and 
to develop common approaches to how to meet the requirements.

One aspect that touches the recent discussion on SRTP usage in RTCWEB is 
that the specifications from the emergency service organisations EENA 
and NENA prefer DTLS-SRTP but accept SDES.

In summary: Emergency service requirements surely needs to be described 
in rtcweb related specifications. If it is not mentioned among the 
kernel use-cases it should be in specifications about application of rtcweb.

Gunnar

On 2013-04-29 16:01, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> The topic in this mail is Emergency Services. This was discussed in 
> [2] - [16] (i hope I found all the relevant mails, please correct me 
> if I missed any), and my conclusion is that we should not add specific 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:05:50 -0400

And

http://www.fcc.gov/document/section-718-accessibility-requirements-internet-
browsers-mobile-0

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Gunnar Hellstrom
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case and requirement
document, “Emergency Services”

It would contain items that are not directly linked to details of the media
streams standardized in rtcweb, but are important in apparent applications
of the technology.
It would contribute to the ambition to not create silos.

RFC 6881 says:

ED-2: Devices that create media sessions and exchange real-time audio,
video, and/or text and that have the capability to establish sessions to a
wide variety of addresses and communicate over private IP networks or the
Internet SHOULD support emergency calls. Some jurisdictions have regulations
governing this.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

These requirements will clearly apply to some rtcweb applications, and it
will be important to both remind rtcweb implementers about them and to
develop common approaches to how to meet the requirements.

One aspect that touches the recent discussion on SRTP usage in RTCWEB is
that the specifications from the emergency service organisations EENA and
NENA prefer DTLS-SRTP but accept SDES.

In summary: Emergency service requirements surely needs to be described in
rtcweb related specifications. If it is not mentioned among the kernel
use-cases it should be in specifications about application of rtcweb.

Gunnar

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:47:05 -0700

The below reference is significant for WebRTC because it indicates that browsers are regulated under Section 716 of CVAA with respect to "Advanced Communications Services".   Are there also provisions of the Report & Order relevant to emergency services?Richard pointed to:
 http://www.fcc.gov/document/section-718-accessibility-requirements-internet-browsers-mobile-0