Subject: [Ecrit] Comments on ecrit-requirements-00 section 4: R2, R4, R6, D1

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:01:55 -0400

1. R2: editorial
In the second last line of motivation, suggest deleting "United States". 
  Other places have counties too.

2. R4: almost editorial.
The second sentence of motivation slightly contradicts the first as 
things read now, making for jarring reading.  I suggest adding the 
following at the beginning of the second sentence:
"However, looking to the future, ...".

3. R6: substantive.
The requirement reads OK subject to what I say below, but the motivation 
is much too SIP-oriented.  The real motivation is to minimize the 
requirement for specialized support of emergency services routing in 
devices used for Emergency Services Routing Support beyond the point of 
mapping.

The substantive issue is that for any given call a specific signalling 
protocol will be used.  The requirement should therefore be tweaked not 
to say that the returned URI(s) should be usable in some signalling 
protocol, but that they should be usable specifically in the signalling 
protocol in use at that point in the call path.  The exact text might read:

"The ECRIT mapping protocol MUST return URIs that are usable by the 
standard form of the signalling protocol in use at that point in the 
call path (i.e. without special emergency extensions) unless an error is 
returned."

4. D1: sort of editorial
Requirement D1 as phrased is a bit imprecise.  The motivation is a 
clearer statement.  To bring the two in line, I suggest D1 be rephrased 
as follows:

"PSAP identification: The mapping information must be available without 
requiring the caller to have enrolled with a specific service provider."

BTW "VSP" appears in the last line of the motivation, should be "ASP".

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit