1. ECRIT Direct Calling draft-winterbottom-ecrit-direct-01 James Winterbottom, Martin Thomson, Hannes Tschofenig, Henning Schulzrinne 1draft-winterbottom-ecrit-direct-01

2. Model 2draft-winterbottom-ecrit-direct-01

3. Builds on -phone-bcp Not intended to replace -phone-bcp Location acquisition, route determination is the same – Uses an LCP or local source (e.g., GPS) for location Differences: – Does not rely on Route header, instead directly contacts the PSAP at the URI provided by LoST – Provides a mechanism for call-back draft-winterbottom-ecrit-direct-013

4. Advantages Provides emergency calling for any device …without a need for a VSP: draft-winterbottom-ecrit-direct-014

5. Callback Contact header could be insufficient for callback – Intervening NAT/firewall prevents incoming flow Devices that wish to allow callback REGISTER with the ESRP using SIP outbound (RFC 5626) No identity/credentials needed – Potential for new or novel schemes draft-winterbottom-ecrit-direct-015

6. Security Problem: hoax calls with spoofed location or identity LOTS of discussion Presented complaint: – No intermediary to provide an independent assurance of identity using transitive trust Disagreement on desired properties of any solution: – Identification for post-hoc audit/retribution Can be for identity OR location information – Call classification for prioritization purposes Some regions will demand that this not be used – Up to jurisdictional policy draft-winterbottom-ecrit-direct-016