Subject: [Ecrit] Issue 23: list of uri's - draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-01 edits

From: "Roger Marshall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:31:00 -0800

All:
I'm picking up once again on getting all the issues listed at
www.ietf-ecrit.org/issues/ resolved.

Here's an easy one, which was mentioned at IETF64 and was logged by
Rohan as issue 23: (thanks Rohan)

Issue 23: Author: rohan Date: 2005-11-07.22:25:20  
Today the requirements doc specifies sip:, sips:, and tel:  Why is tel:
included
and why don't we include im: and xmpp: URI schemes?

Editor's Comment: My understanding is that a reference to tel:uri is
needed for those use cases where the target might only be reachable via
the PSTN.  This might include slow-to-upgrade PSAPs or perhaps fallback
call handling scenarios.  Wrt additional uri's, I've added a couple
(those provided).  Though there are many other uri schemes listed in the
IANA registry, I've capped the example list with "etc.", which at least
implies that the list is not constrained.

ORIGINAL TEXT:
emergency address: The sip:uri, sips:uri, or tel:uri 
which represents the address of the PSAP useful for the completion of 
an emergency call.

PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TEXT:
emergency address: The uri scheme (e.g. sip:uri, sips:uri, 
xmpp:uri, im:uri, tel:uri, etc.) which represents the address of the
PSAP 
useful for the completion of an emergency call.

Objections? Please send to me and the list, along with new proposed
text.  This issue will be marked resolved after 10 days if no comments
are received. 

Thanks.

Roger Marshall

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