RE: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA

This ends up being a bit of an essay - but it was the only way I felt I could respond to the question. The executive summary just says "I think the significance of these forums to the Internet depends on the nature of the forum." I know there's a mutual dependence between the Internet and these forums - in a very real way, neither would survive without the other. 1) A number of the forums are specialists in access technology. They care to the extent that convention and regulation impact the functionality they need to provide. The IEEE, for example, reported at the SDO workshop in Columbia that they were considering dropping work on explicit location support because the "L7" approach was gaining focus - and because the NENA requirements were based on that model. They are now thinking that it's better to provide the mechanisms to deliver network measurement parameters by which a LIS could determine location - and subsequently package, deliver, and protect according to a general model, rather than provide a WiMAX specific mechanism to get location information to an end device. For them, it's kind of a relief that they don't have to push up into the application issues associated with location. 2) I'm not sure what the implications are for the "Internet". My suspicion is that there aren't particularly strong implications for it. Access technologies will continue to diversify and evolve as they have done for the last few decades. WiMAX, WiFi, Ethernet... none of them are technically just for IP access but the only market which permits them to become commodities is IP and the most common application for that is Internet access. I think the IEEE and other access forums will continue to try and keep their products relevant to that use. 3) In the case of 3GPP/2 however, we have a definite collision of worlds. They represent a complete end to end network architecture covering everything from devices through functional network elements, protocols, and even the services. While the architecture defines Packet Service (on top of the increasingly defunct Circuit Service) it is definitely not the same as being the Internet. Strictly speaking, IMS only has meaning within that constraint (even though the term is being used for a general Internet based VoIP service). The most significant convergence issue is between the likes of 3G and the general Internet model. The probability envelope still hasn't collapsed on whether 3G is primarily just another Internet access technology or whether it's a complete network itself - with Internet access bolted on the side as a peripheral function. I think market forces will not permit it to continue as a relatively complete but closed network - but that's just my view. 4) NENA, ETSI TISPAN, and similar organizations represent special interest groups that live on the Internet - I think we'll see increasing numbers of such organizations - NENA didn't used to worry about it, but now it does. The Internet is paying the price of its success; people wanted everyone to use it, now they do and they have things to say about how they'd like it to be. To some extent they will just want to refine their own applications and conventions but, also, they will seek to influence the functionality that is available in the Internet to make it optimal for their interests. 5) The role of the IETF in all this... I am not sure. I understand that in principal it may be the anointed party that ensures there is consistency and integrity to support global interoperability and some principles in support of users. When I look around, though, I see many many working groups focusing on very eclectic topics - and I'm not sure what sort of constitutional governance is used to really decide what's pertinet for the IETF and what might be better off having its own forum. An alternative view would have been to say that "internet" means that it stops at the internetworking layer (layer 3 really) and that the Internet is the specific most significant global set of interconnected networks. From that perspective, the IETF would have made sure there was a consistent layer 3, including control functions (like DNS, DHCP, BGCP, etc.) but wouldn't sponsor applications - nor necessarily session, transport, and presentation layer technologies. In it's purest form the Internet is an openly connected set of layer 3 networks; a global platform for any number of applications. Voice is just a service, instant messaging is just a service, U-Tube is just a service... they all involve protocols and have interworking issues in their own domain but that's their problem and they shouldn't be able to impact a properly robust Internet. I think that's the virtue of the Internet over 3GPP/2 by the way - it's not as heavily prescriptive about what it is used for. Of course - the IETF is not as I just suggested it could be - I said earlier what it looks like to me... confusing. In practice some of the application protocols are defined in the IETF and others are not. W3C was formed by Berners-Lee so he could pursue WWW principles independently of the IETF. It didn't really make any difference to the Internet that he did that - just added a terrific new application area with its own forum. It's certainly good that there's a place for people to go if they think they have a useful idea for something to do on the Internet but it certainly becomes a "grab bag". Perhaps it was because the IETF inherited other "stuff" like SMTP, FTP, and SNMP from the original ARPANet suite that opened the door to make it forum that's an application free for all... I don't know. Cheers, Martin -----Original Message----- From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:Barbara.Stark@BellSouth.com] Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:13 PM To: Tschofenig, Hannes; Dawson, Martin; Dolly, Martin C (Attlabs); Hannes Tschofenig; GEOPRIV; ECRIT Subject: RE: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA DSL Forum is also using the NENA documents to determine requirements for network elements and CPE. Barbara -----Original Message----- From: Tschofenig, Hannes [mailto:hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:58 AM To: Dawson, Martin; Dolly, Martin C (Attlabs); Hannes Tschofenig; GEOPRIV; ECRIT Subject: AW: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA Hi Martin, Thanks for the quick response. I am trying to figure out what the impact to the Internet is if many SDOs develop their own specifications for emergency services without considering the NENA work and I am particularly referring to the SDOs that potentially impact real networks. More comments below: > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Dawson, Martin [mailto:Martin.Dawson@andrew.com] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. März 2007 12:47 > An: Tschofenig, Hannes; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; Hannes Tschofenig; > GEOPRIV; ECRIT > Betreff: RE: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA > > I think Martin (the other Martin, not me) meant that ATIS works with > NENA specifications. NENA is not an accredited SDO > - in the same sense, for example, that ATIS is accredited and able to > publish American National Standards. Of course, that doesn't prevent > NENA from publishing referencable documents. > The E2 interface specification used for wireless E-9-1-1 is a NENA > document and, as ever, the i2 architecture specification is a NENA > document. > > I don't think there's anything prescriptive about how the work of NENA > interacts with other SDOs. I think it's best understood in terms of > the general role of NENA - which is to provide a national consensus > view on how the elements of the emergency service fit together. This > ends up covering everything from devices through access and core > networks, and into the emergency network elements - the routers, call > centers, and ALI and ANI databases. > > This is particularly important in an environment such as the US which > is extremely devolved with multiple independent parties operating at > every level and every function. Without a body like NENA it would all > deteriorate into chaos - despite how it seems to some, that's not what > it is now. :) > > It's good to look at a case study. > > NENA had a lot of influence on, for example, the TIA > J-STD-036 specification for phase 2 wireless which subsequently formed > the deployment model for how the FCC mandate for wireless E-9-1-1 > should be satisfied. This consequently had an impact on 3GPP/2. >From the last SDO workshop I got the impression that the 3GPP2 actually had nothing expect for a few high-level requirements. Since a lot of the 3GPP2 work is taken from 3GPP it might well be possible that they also recycle the emergency services work. Maybe they have developed a solution already. Maybe you can point to the relevant documents. There are even > parameters in the 3GPP MAP specification called NA-ESRK and NA-ESRD > (the NA part stands for North American) - though they do actually have > generic utility. But the NENA work is more than just these parameters. > > A typical chain of influence would go along the lines that US carriers > need to meet some regulatory requirement for which definitions > originating or influenced by NENA form the model for deployment. The > carriers need their vendors to support the functionality associated > with the model. Both the vendors and the carriers participate in the > SDOs governing the specifications for the network elements involved > and subsequently influence what those specifications look like. > To a large extent, artefacts turn up in SDO specifications as an > extended phenotype of the significance and influence of the US market > and the role of NENA in that market. But it is not really good if the NENA work does not appear in the standardization work of other SDOs. > > Does that make sense? I'm not aware that there are any strict > definitions for the relationship between NENA and other SDOs. It makes sense but to me it looks like the recipe for a non-working global emergency service solution since there are too many players involved that want to develop their own story. Ciao Hannes > Cheers, > Martin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tschofenig, Hannes [mailto:hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com] > Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2007 9:31 PM > To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; Hannes Tschofenig; GEOPRIV; ECRIT > Subject: AW: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA > > Hi Martin, > > what do you mean by "ATIS"? > > You mean that ATIS is using the NENA architecture or I should have > included ATIS in the list of SDOs? > > Ciao > Hannes > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS [mailto:mdolly@att.com] > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. März 2007 11:28 > > An: Hannes Tschofenig; GEOPRIV; ECRIT > > Betreff: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] NENA > > > > ATIS > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:41 AM > > To: GEOPRIV; ECRIT > > Subject: [Ecrit] NENA > > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to better understand the work done by NENA. > > > > Which SDOs are going to make use (or is already used) of the work > > done by NENA? > > > > Consider the following SDOs, as an example > > - 3GPP > > - 3GPP2 > > - Wimax > > - Wifi Alliance > > - DSL Forum > > - ETSI TISPAN > > - CableLabs > > > > Since there is often a mismatch between the standards being > > developed in > > > > these SDOs I would like to also understand how the NENA work going > > to be > > > > used on the Internet? > > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ecrit mailing list > > Ecrit@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Geopriv mailing list > > Geopriv@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > > > > _______________________________________________ > Geopriv mailing list > Geopriv@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------- > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately > and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is > prohibited. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------- > [mf2] > > _______________________________________________ Ecrit mailing list Ecrit@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA621 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:19:59 -0500