Subject: RE: [Ecrit] requirements

From: "James Winterbottom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 04:20:16 +1100

I agree.

My point was more that we specifically state as to which end-point the
policy is applicable to.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, 26 March 2005 4:16 AM
To: Winterbottom, James [WOLL:5500:EXCH]; 'Marc Linsner'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] requirements

There are two users, the operator of the User Agent Server and operator of
the User Agent Client.  Each has a policy.  It's possible that those
policies will conflict, in which case calls may not go through.  I hope
that's pretty rare.

Brian

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
James Winterbottom
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 11:47 AM
To: Marc Linsner; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] requirements

Can we be very specific about which "User" we are talking about then.
Because the statement thus far has really been referring to this as being a
"PSAP policy" and relates to call acceptance, rather than call
routing/delivery.

-----Original Message----- 
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Marc Linsner 
Sent: Saturday, 26 March 2005 3:30 AM 
To: [email-masked] 
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] requirements 

OK, it sounds like I have misinterpreted your "MUST". 
I agree to: The 'mechanism' that ecrit is going to define "MUST" support a
signed lo as well as an unsigned lo.  User policy will dictate when/if a lo
is signed. I also believe the security and threats section needs to discuss
aspects of each user policy. 
-Marc- 

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