Subject: [Ecrit] Phone BCP: RFC 2119

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:54:51 +0300

I am not sure whether RFC 2119 language is used consistently throughout 
the document.
For example, Section 4 uses RFC 2119 althought in my view this has nothing
todo with RFC 2119. Here is the text from Section 4:

"
4.  Which devices and services should support emergency  calls

   ED-1 A device or application SHOULD support emergency calling if a
   user could reasonably expect to be able to place a call for help with
   the device.

   SP-1 If a device or application expects to be able to place a call
   for help, the service provider that supports it MUST facilitate
   emergency calling.

   ED-2 Devices that create media sessions and exchange audio, video
   and/or text, and have the capability to establish sessions to a wide
   variety of addresses, and communicate over private IP networks or the
   Internet, SHOULD support emergency calls.
"

I am also not sure whether one should say anything about
this aspect.

Another example:

"
   ED-10 Devices SHOULD NOT have one button emergency calling
   initiation.
"

Yet another example:

"
   ED-13/INT-2/SP-11/AN-1 Elements MUST NOT convert (civic to geo or geo
   to civic) from the form of location the determination mechanism
   supplied.
"

This requirement is somewhat out of scope of the IETF work in general:

"
   ED-14/INT-3/AN-2 Any suitable location determination mechanism MAY be
   used.
"

"
   AN-4 Access networks supporting copper, fiber or other hard wired IP
   packet service SHOULD support location configuration.  If the network
   does not support location configuration, it MUST require every device
   that connects to the network to support end system measured location.
"
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:07:25 -0400

I do not understand your reasoning.  I think 2119 language is appropriate in
all of your examples.

We have discussed the scope issues several times.  I thought we had agreed
on it, but we certainly can re-open the discussion.

Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 3:55 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ecrit] Phone BCP: RFC 2119

"

Another example:

"

Yet another example:

"

"

"