Subject: [Sipping-tispan] Requirements -02g

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:25:42 +0300

Hi:

I have this working copy of the requirements, version -02g:

http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-requirements-02g.txt
http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-requirements-02g.html

And a diff version with respect -02f:

http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-requirements-02f-to-g.html

The changes in this version are:
- Grouping of the CCBS/CCNR requirements for better understing
- A few clarifications to the CDIV requirements
- Addition of the Calling Party Category requirements.

Now, I have a few questions.

- The Calling Party Category requirements do not constitute a service by 
  itself. In my opinion, they should be General requirements listed a 
REQ-GEN-4 and REQ-GEN-5. Does anyone oppose to move them to the General 
section?

- We had a pending action point to revisit the ACR requirements once we 
have drafted the Calling Party Category requirements. Now we have 
achieved this state, and my opinion is that we don't need to add any 
extra wording to ACR, since the Calling Party Category requirements 
cover the use case we have been discussing (police anonymously call a 
user with ACR activated).

Last, but not least, WE ARE ALMOST DONE with the requirements. So please 
take a look at this draft and comment on any pending issue. I would like 
to solve issues as soon as possible and submit the draft for publication.

Regards,

         Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
sip:[email-masked]
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland

_______________________________________________
Sipping-tispan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-tispan

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:25:51 -0400

> - Addition of the Calling Party Category requirements.

I have a comment about one of the added requirements, than then some 
response to your  questions. First, the added requirement:

> REQ-CAT-1: For service applicability to special groups and
>            interoperability with the PSTN/ISDN, application servers
>            providing services require to have an indication of the
>            calling party category.  This is needed because some
>             services apply a special behavior to certain user groups
>            (e.g., like Pay-Phones).

This isn't helpful without some additional information about calling 
party category.
- What is it?
- Is it a single attribute with a well known enumeration of
   possible values?
- Or is the set of values open ended?
- If the values are extensible, how does one learn of the definitions?
- Are multiple values permitted?
   (E.g. the caller is both "police" and "emergency-responder",
    or both "operator" and "prison".)

Without this information it is impossible to evaluate the use of this to 
enable services.

> REQ-GEN-4 and REQ-GEN-5. Does anyone oppose to move them to the General 

Seems reasonable to me.

> user with ACR activated).

The existing wording does not seem at all sufficient to me to cover this 
case. The following is in the description of ACR:

    services also contains provisions for exceptional cases where the
    service is overridden.  ... Another case is when the caller
    has been duly authorized to override the ACR service running at the
    called party's network.  This is the case, e.g., when a police
    officer or any other authority is anonymously calling to a user
    having the ACR simulation service activated.

There are no requirements corresponding to this description. What 
determines when a caller has been "duly authorized"? IMO the insertion 
of a calling party category does not constitute any kind of 
authorization. At best it is a kind of authentication.

As it stands, calling party category seems to be an attribute without 
semantics, which could be used to do anything. I don't think that is good.

	Paul

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:26:22 +0300

Hi Paul:

I will let others, perhaps Roland, to answer your questions about the 
Calling Party Category. I suspect that the idea is to define an 
enumeration of values that can be used.

The current text has been directly imported from version -01 of the 
draft with minor wordsmith.

Regards,

        Miguel

Paul Kyzivat wrote:

>> - The Calling Party Category requirements do not constitute a service 
>> by  itself. In my opinion, they should be General requirements listed 
>> a REQ-GEN-4 and REQ-GEN-5. Does anyone oppose to move them to the 
>> General section?
> 
> 
> Seems reasonable to me.
> 
>> - We had a pending action point to revisit the ACR requirements once 
>> we have drafted the Calling Party Category requirements. Now we have 
>> Last, but not least, WE ARE ALMOST DONE with the requirements. So 
>> please take a look at this draft and comment on any pending issue. I 
>> would like to solve issues as soon as possible and submit the draft 
>> for publication.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>         Miguel
>>

---

From: "ZhouQing(Justin)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:23:27 +0800

Hi Migule,

In case CDIV, I think it's better to change REQ-CDIV-1 as followed to make it consistent with REQ-CDIV-3 and REQ-CDIV-4,
From:
It must be possible that the caller is informed that a communication is being diverted. 
To: 
It must be possible for the caller, the callee, and network intermediaries to be informed that a communication is being diverted. 
How do you think?

A short tiping error in REQ-CDIV-4, callee instead of caleee.

Regards,
Justin

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:04:25 +0300

Hi Justin:

Thanks for your comments, inline discussion.

> It must be possible for the caller, the callee, and network intermediaries to be informed that a communication is being diverted. 

I think we don't have such requirements. REQ-CDIV-3 and -4 indicate that 
the network intermediaries (e.g., the voice mail server where my calls 
are diverted) need to receive the reason for the redirection and the 
identity of the caller. I think requirements are ok if you want to 
provide personalized services, like a different welcome message in the 
voice mail server, depending on the reason why the call ended up in the 
voice mail server. For example, the callee is busy will have a different 
welcome message than when a telemarketer is my black list.

But, in case of REQ-CDIV-1, I wonder whether we have a requirement to 
inform the callee that the call is being diverted. And I don't see 
either for network intermediaries.

> A short tiping error in REQ-CDIV-4, callee instead of caleee.

Fixed.

Regards,

       Miguel