Subject: [Sipping] Holiday Reading: Updated Request History requirements draft

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:04:01 -0600

Hi all,

Just a heads up that I have submitted an update to the Request History
Requirements draft (I should also have the updated solution draft out
shortly, as well).   Until it appears in the repository it's available at:
http://home.attbi.com/~mbarnes42/IETF/draft-ietf-sipping-req-history-01.txt

The following summarizes the changes:

1.  Reworded the last paragraph of the introduction to stress the point that
the intent of this requirements draft is not to provide a solution for any
specific application.  Many of the services which could make use of Request
History would likely need additional building blocks for full functionality.

2. Highlighted in the introduction,  that as well as being the basis for
enhanced services, Request History also can enhance basic SIP by providing
diagnostic information and has a side effect of enhancing the basic SIP
security. 

3. I've left the security requirements in this document, but I have
highlighted that these are more general than just for Request History.
[Process Question? The security solution should definitely be addressed in a
solution draft separate from History-Info, but do we also need a separate
requirements draft?  My opinion would be No, and this is based on the model
that was introduced for the deaf requirements, which has resulted in a
separate solution draft for transcoding which is also envisioned to meet the
3GPP requirements.] 

4. Reworded SEC-req-4 as it was proposing a solution rather the basic
requirement.  

5. Put the Privacy requirements in a separate section (from the security
requirements).  Clarified the wording around PRIV-req-1 (the implication in
the original wording had been that there was some knowledge around the
privacy associated with the Retargeted-to-URI, however, this has been
updated to reflect the more general requirement around the privacy
associated with the request as indicated by the caller) There has been alot
of offline email on this (more with regards to the solution draft), however,
I still don't see that the requirements need to change as a result.  Please
do review and provide feedback (with any proposed rewording greatly
appreciated).  

6. Misc. editorial changes: minor rewording in introduction, updated
references and acknowledgements. 

I've only had one responses directly to the requirements document from one
person based upon Rohan's plea to please review this document in November.
So, please do take the time to read this, it really is very short
(particularly if you skip the appendix). 

Regards,
Mary H. Barnes
[email-masked]
972-684-5432

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP