Subject: [Sipping-tispan] Feature enhancements

From: "Schmidt, Christian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:18:48 +0200

Sylvia Tessa wrote:

>I'm getting in trouble here : how are we supposed to proceed ? Do this
kind of enhancements need to be written as requirements or will they
come up through common sense >while dealing with the solution ?  
>Personally I would write in the document only the strict TISPAN
requirements, then, while elaborating a solution, it will get more
advanced and general purpose, but what >do the other ones here say ?

>Silvia

I agree with you, that we should restrict the requirements to TISPAN
requirements. Nevertheless, I would propose, to include information
about plausible feature enhancements in the draft. It would make clear,
that these extensions have been studied, but are definitely not required
for the basic services. Perhaps you can
realize this in some kind of Non-Requirements. Example:
Non-Req-AoC: The cancelation of a CCBS request by the network must not
be reported to the requestor of the service.

What do you think about?

Regards,
Christian 

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

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:42:09 +0300

I am ok with your proposal. Do we have other opinions?

It must be noted that, althought TISPAN has the mandate to provide a 
compatible service with the existing PSTN service, it is not forbidden 
to enhance the existing PSTN service.

/Miguel

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