Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Comments on ecrit-requirements-00 section 5: L6 and L29

From: "Roger Marshall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:50:31 -0700

Tom:
Subj: ECRIT requirements comments, Section 5

Thanks for your input to these.
Please see my responses in-line.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of Tom-PT Taylor
>Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:30 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [Ecrit] Comments on ecrit-requirements-00 section 5: 
>L6 and L29
>
>L6: the "motivation" is really just a definition, and there is 
>a better definition in the terminology section.  I think the 
>real motivation is to provide opportunity to improve the 
>accuracy of the routing process and to speed emergency call 
>setup.  Actual text:
>
>"Motivation: this provides the opportunity to help assure the 
>accuracy of routing of emergency calls, and avoid delays 
>during emergency call setup due to invalid locations."

Makes sense.  New Motivation restated (some additional rewording) 
along with the requirement.  Note: "civic address" changed 
to "civic location" (this has been done throughout draft):

L6.  Validation of civic location: It MUST be possible to 
validate an civic location prior to its use in an actual 
emergency call.

Motivation: Location validation provides an opportunity to 
help assure whether successful mapping to the appropriate 
PSAP will likely occur.  Validation may also help to avoid 
delays during emergency call setup due to invalid locations.

>
>
>L29:
>(1) It would be good if this followed immediately after L6, 
>since the two requirements are closely related.
>
>(2) The motivation is too broad relative to the requirement.  
>I'd suggest something like the following:
>
>"Motivation: failures of routine procedures or special 
>circumstances will inevitably result in the occasional 
>presentation of non-validated and in some cases invalid 
>locations. The emergency routing system must provide a 
>reasonable response to them."

I think this motivation misses the point, why validation must not be
required.  I've taken a stab at a reworded motivation part to L29
(requirement restated for context):

L29.  Validation of a civic location MUST NOT be 
required to enable any feature that is part of  the emergency call 
process.

Motivation: In some cases, (based on a variety of factors), 
a civic location may not be considered valid.  This fact should 
not result in the call being dropped or rejected by any entity 
along the signaling path to the PSAP.

Also, I'm ok with shifting requirement L29 up, to immediately follow L6
as suggested.

Roger Marshall

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

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