Subject: [Ecrit] draft review <draft-schulzrinne-sipping-emergency-req-01.txt>

From: Tschofenig Hannes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:13:15 +0100

hi henning, 

i quickly read through your draft and here are a few high level comments:
  * good document with an impressive list of requirements
    (also addresses security specific requirements)
  * i wonder whether the other draft authors have read this document. it
would be good to know how their requirements relate to the requirements
raised in this document. 

things to improve with this document: 
  * a few sections address topics that are outside the scope of ecrit
  * terminology needs to be enhanced and fixed
  * a number of security related requirements have been addressed in the
document but the
    security consideration section requires more work
  * some people might argue that the language in the document is a bit too
sip focused 

some some very minor comments at :
http://www.ietf-ecrit.org/comments/draft-schulzrinne-sipping-emergency-req-0
1_hannes.txt

ciao
hannes

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 20:25:05 -0500

Thanks for your comments. Some quick responses below:

    Enhanced emergency service: Enhanced emergency services add the
       ability to identify the caller identity and/or caller location to
       basic emergency services.  (Sometimes, only the caller location
       may be known, e.g., from a public access point that is not owned
       by an individual.)

[hannes] why is this differentiation necessary?

>   * a few sections address topics that are outside the scope of ecrit

Those will be deleted.

>   * some people might argue that the language in the document is a bit too

Well, this started as a SIPPING document... One high-level decision to 
be made is whether we assume that calls reach PSAPs via SIP, even if 
after translation. Clearly, some parts will be independent of the 
signaling protocol, but I don't think there's much point in having PSAPs 
support some smorgasbord of signaling protocols since that would only 
work if everybody supported everything.