ECRIT Virtual Interim Meeting

3rd June 2009, 1PM EDT (New York)

Marc LinsnerHannes Tschofenig

Note WellAny submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draftor RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF Contribution”.Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communicationsmade at any time or place, which are addressed to:

-the IETF plenary session,-any IETF working group or portion thereof,-the IESG or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,-the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,-any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices,-the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function

All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 5378 and RFC 3979 (updated by RFC 4879).

Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to beinput to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this notice. Pleaseconsult RFC 5378 and RFC 3979 for details.

A participant in any IETF activity is deemed to accept all IETF rules of process, as documented in Best CurrentPractices RFCs and IESG Statements.

A participant in any IETF activity acknowledges that written, audio and video records of meetings may bemade and may be available to the public.

Logistics

• The ECRIT Wiki page contains all the necessary information:

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/trac/wiki

Agenda• Agenda bash: 5 min.• Chair Update: 5 min.• PhoneBCP discussion: 45 min.

– After attempts to come to resolution around the issue of ‘Applicability Statement’, it’s clear that we don’t have consensus to include the current statement in the draft. The chairs are looking for discussion/contributions towards resolving this issue.

• Work Prioritization: 20 min.– The ADs are still holding us to getting PhoneBCP and Framework out

before adding more milestones. The group has stacked the deck of milestones, but we want to discuss prioritization of the new milestones we’ll be asking for as we will be limited to 6 at a time.

• Open Discussion: 15 min.

WG Status: Overview• Main WG documents got updated this year• draft-patel-ecrit-sos-parameter will be AD sponsored. PROTO writeup

submitted. • LoST Sync is waiting for implementers feedback. Roger is document

shepherd. • draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch is in RFC Editor queue. • Discussions around ECRIT RPH settled. Marc is document shepherd. • PhoneBCP/Framework got stuck a bit.• Location Hiding: Review comments received. Update needed. • Specifying Holes in LoST Service Boundaries: Cullen will chat with Cullen. • Btw, feedback on how to work more efficiently in the group is appreciated. • More details:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06380.html

PhoneBCP

• No clear consensus for the addition of an ‘applicability statement’

• How do we move forward?• Acknowledge the solution is based on the

requirements of RFC5012?• ?

Current Milestones• Done Submit 'Requirements for Emergency Context

Resolution with Internet Technologies' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC.

• Done Submit 'Security Threats and Requirements for Emergency Call Marking and Mapping' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC.

• Done Submit 'A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Emergency and Other Well-Known Services' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.

• Done Submit 'LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.

• Done Submit 'Discovering Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Servers Using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC.

• Done Submit 'Location-to-URL Mapping Architecture and Framework' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC.

Current Milestones• Done Submit 'Location Hiding: Problem Statement and

Requirements' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC.

• Done Submit 'Specifying Holes in LoST Service Boundaries' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC.

• Jul 2009 Submit 'Synchronizing Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol based Service Boundaries and Mapping Elements' to the IESG for consideration as an Experimental RFC.

• Jul 2009 Submit 'Framework for Emergency Calling using Internet Multimedia' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC.

• Jul 2009 Submit 'Best Current Practice for Communications Services in support of Emergency Calling' to the IESG for consideration as a BCP document

7/29/08 ECRIT - IETF 72 (Dublin) 8

Prioritization of work

• RPH namespace• Rough location• Update the Service URN procedures• Karl Heinz’s service boundary draft• PSAP callback• Unauthenticated access• Premature disconnect• Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST) Extensions

Planned Charter Update• See initial proposal here:

– http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg05793.html• A bit outdated right now. • In addition to the previously mentioned milestone update we

would include the following milestones: • Suggestion for these two items was to submit them to the

RFC Editor directly with expert review from the ECRIT group:– "LoST Classification of Location-based Services"– "LoST Usage for discovering Shelter Services“