Subject: [Ecrit] New requirements draft -09 available

From: "Roger Marshall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:27:55 -0700

Here's a summary of changes for the new edition of the ECRIT
requirements draft, recently submitted to the I-D editor. 

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-09.txt

A diff version of this is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements/

This new version contains changes which are generally described below:

A.  Quite a bit of renumbering and reordering has been done with both
the terminology section and the various requirements.

B.  Received review comments from Hannes (5/12) & a few others.  Tried
to incorporate all or respond with reasons why, if not.

C.  Rewording of Introduction section, paragraph 6, etc. talking about
identifiers.

D.  Tried to clean up confusion around terminology.  For example,
replaced the term 'emergency identifier' with 'emergency service
identifier'.

E.  In light of the ecrit-service-urn draft, added some new terms &
defns, such as:

Service identifier (examples include: urn:service:info or a tel URI,
etc.)
Service URN (an implementation of above, namely conforms to the example
urn:service:*)
Emergency service identifier ((ESI), from the set of service
identifiers, context=emergency services only, with examples of
urn:service:sos or a tel URI)
Emergency service URN (an implementation of an ESI, example is
urn:service:sos, urn:service:sos.fire, etc. - also sometimes referred to
as an 'sos service URN')

(In the last case of an emergency service URN, I don't like to have two
names for the same thing, but felt that this name was preferable, rather
than use 'sos service URN'.)

F. Updated the issues in the issues tracker
(http://www.ietf-ecrit.org:8080/ecrit-req/index):

Only a few issues remain.  Since some rewording changes we made, these
are still left to age (i.e., time for comment).

Issues which I have left open are: 
#52 protocol specific, end devices out of scope - reworded to make more
general/ 
#35 Location Validation - removed 1 existing, 2 of the new requirements,
marked 'done'/ 
#38 Ma5. URI alternate contact - some rewording + renumbered now as Ma9,
marked 'done'/ 
#39 Ma6. URL properties  - replacement of URL with URI, renumbered as
Ma11, marked 'done'/ 

#52 will be marked as "Resolved" after several days, assuming no
objections arise from the list.

G.  No new issues have been logged.

H.  Removed requirements Id4, "Prevention of Fraud, based on review
comment that it be covered within the security draft.

I.  Added IANA section to draft.

Roger Marshall.

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

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 17:26:06 -0400

Roger

Thank you for all your work on this.

Can we be done now?

We are clearly over the line when we make a change to the requirements in
light of a draft for the solution (service urn).  We need to get this
document out now, because we're not helping the solution, we're just
polishing the apple.

I respectfully ask that we complete WGLC, and any further comments be
subject to a "does this REALLY matter now" test.

The best quality requirements documents are always written after the product
is in the market, but those don't help the implementation team much.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Marshall [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 4:28 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ecrit] New requirements draft -09 available

Roger Marshall.

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 17:08:04 -0500

>subject to a "does this REALLY matter now" test.

I second this motion