Subject: [Ecrit] New requirements draft available

From: "Roger Marshall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:25:59 -0700

I have submitted a new edition of the ECRIT requirements draft to the
I-D editor. Until it appears in the archives, you can find it at the
following links:

http://www.ietf-ecrit.org/cache/draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-07.txt
http://www.ietf-ecrit.org/cache/draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-07.html

In addition to several minor wording changes, most of the significant
changes are based on either discussions at IETF65-Dallas, the ecrit
mailing list, or the issues logged in the  tracker
(http://www.ietf-ecrit.org:8080/ecrit-req/index):

A few of the open issues contain proposed text, some of which, has been
included in this version of the draft.  All issues will be monitored,
and resolved based on discussion, (or lack thereof - if
non-controversial).

Generally, the changes in this draft are as follows: 

- attempted to clean up all requirements with respect to RFC 2119
guidelines.

- Id7.  Reworded to point to the mapping protocol.  Also, since this
requirement originally focused on the end device, it has been changed to
MUST, as the scope and intent has changed.  This doesn't preclude the
phone BCP including the original requirement.

- removed the original (Id9.) requirement which stated, "Emergency
identifier recognition: An 
emergency identifier MUST be recognized by any network 
element which supports the mapping protocol.", since it was covered by
req. Id1. already.

- reworded req. Ma5., "URI alternate contact", per M. Linsner's
suggested text.

- reworded req. Ma6., "URL properties", per M. Linsner's text.

- added a new issue #53, based on what I thought was vague wording of
req. titled "Split responsibility".

- removed req. titled, "Ubiquitous triggering", since it seemed to be
covered by separate requirements, (see) Ma11 & Ma12.

- misc. reordering/renumbering.

- Bob Natale caught a few more errors, some which I didn't get into this
version, but will go into a subsequent version (ref. email 3/19, and
thanks Bob).

The questions around location validation are still being discussed on
the list, and have not been altered significantly within the draft
(other than consolidating into the Location section).  I expect the
discussion on the list will provide direction as to changes to the
existing validation language or the possible addition of new
requirements, etc.

Comments welcomed.

Roger Marshall.

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