Subject: Re: [Ecrit] phonebcp-04 comments

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:53:47 -0400

Barbara

Thanks for your continuing careful reading of these documents.  I have dealt
with all of your comments by changes in the text except:

> 6. ED-62 5.
> "A Route header SHOULD be present with a PSAP URI obtained from LoST
> (see Section 8) and the loose route parameter."
> The loose route parameter part of this really confused me. Is this
> saying that the loose route parameter should be present in the Route
> header? If so, is it suggesting there is a requirement on the End Device
> to validate for the presence of lr, and insert it if it isn't there? Or
> is it expected that URIs sent by LoST will simply include the lr
> parameter? If the expectation is for the LoST server, then that needs to
> go in the LoST doc, and not in and ED requirement. If the expectation is
> for the LoST server, I recommend deleting " and the loose route
> parameter", because the ED simply includes the URI exactly as provided
> by LoST. If the expectation is that the ED ensure the presence of the lr
> parameter, then this needs to be explicitly stated.
The requirement is on the end device.  The parameter is not a URI parameter
but a header parameter: you are signaling that the call must hit the PSAP
URI, but need not do so directly (loose route).

It would not come from the LoST server.  The server should NOT have an lr
parameter under any circumstances.

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