Subject: RE: [Ecrit] [Comments on ECRIT Requirement]

From: "Roger Marshall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:21:41 -0800

Shida:
See my responses inline.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Shida Schubert [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 11:26 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [Ecrit] [Comments on ECRIT Requirement]
>
>
>I haven't read the draft since version 02 and it definitely 
>reads much better. Also I haven't compared my comments to what 
>Roger recently posted as an upcoming changes, so I do 
>apologize if I am repeating something here.
>
>Anyhow, here are my comments and questions.
>
>1. Wording seem to lack consistency in the following 
>requirements although, I believe they meant to mean the same 
>-> MUST implement(not necessarily use)
>
>Re 7. MUST implement(not necessarily use) Lo 1, Lo7. MUST 
>implement Lo 2, Lo 3, Id2. MUST support(i.e required to 
>implement though not required to use.)
>
>I think there was more, but I think it's better to be 
>consistency with the wording.

I think you're right.  At least for the "MUST support (i.e., implement
but not nec. use)" types, these could all be worded the same, I think.

>
>2. I found the following statement in Lo 3's to be rather unclear.
>
>"The protocol MUST support(i.e. must implement in the 
>protocol, though not necessarily use) a mechanism to indicate 
>that a location or a part of a location is known to not exist"
>
>It's not clear what is said by "location is known to not exist".
>Is it trying to address the situation where address which is 
>non-existent in the real world is in the request? or is it 
>simply trying to address situation where the location in the 
>request is non-existent in the location database that mapping 
>entity references(Possibly due to new street being built but 
>propagation has not been completed or simply the request is phony?).
>
>I think it's the latter that we are trying to address here, 
>but may be the requirement is trying to address both cases.

I'm not sure that it matters, whether the address is not yet, or
(actually) exists, but is missing from a database.  In either case, the
location being referenced is problematic, and needs to be resolved.
Does anyone else agree/disagree?

>
>3. Confusion in IdN
>Is universal emergency identifier in Id1 and universal 
>identifier in Id10 different?
>If they are the same, two requirements seem to be stating the 
>same thing.

Yes, you're right.  I will plan to remove Id9 (since renumbering, these
are now Id1/Id9).

>
>4. What's the difference between emergency marking and 
>emergency identifier?
>Looking at the terminology, they seem to indicate the same 
>thing. I guess this is what Tom was pointing out.. If the text 
>from "translated.. " is removed from the terminology section, 
>I don't think the confusion will occur, but may be Emergency 
>identifier instead of marking should be used to be consistent 
>with the terminology used.

Change already made (ref. item 21. in my 3/06 email).

>
>5. I know that most likely candidate for the mapping protocol 
>is SIP, but I thought that the mapping protocol is supposed to 
>support other protocol as well.
>If my
>understanding is correct, it's odd to see SIP specific 
>requirement seen in Id7 as well as Id12. It's really not a big 
>deal, but they seemed out of place.
>

Point taken.  Will plan to change wording from "(i.e., SIP UA)" to
"(e.g., SIP UA)".

>6. Id12 seems to cover Id7.

Id12 was deleted as of -06.

>
>7. Ma5 and Ma7 both seem to say "MUST be able to return 
>multiple PSAP URIs"?
>

I don't think the two requirements are saying the same thing at all.
Additionally, Ma5 Motivation part has been deleted as of -06.

>8. Re7 seems to cover Ma13 and may be Ma17.
>

Re7 relocated to mapping section.  Ma13 has been deleted as of -06.
Ma17 has been reworded in -06.

>9. Ma24. "LCMS query" pops up only at this requirement. If we 
>are to use this term here I think we should add "LCMS query" 
>in terminology section.
>

Term, LCMS, has been deleted as of -06.

Thanks for these comments.

Roger Marshall

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

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