Subject: RE: [Ecrit] comments on ECRIT requirements

From: "Abbott, Nadine B" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 13:09:13 -0400

Andy,

I'm not sure of the purpose for your addition to requirement L6?
The purpose of location validation of civic addresses before they are
used in a call origination is to ensure that the address will result in
successful routing/mapping if used during an emergency call, and to
avoid the necessity for default routing and associated delays, if at all
possible.
This would seem to me to be a "required feature that is part of the
emergency call process" (although I think there is agreement that it
should precede any actual emergency call processing)?

Thanks,
Nadine

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Andrew Newton
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:12 AM
To: ECRIT
Subject: [Ecrit] comments on ECRIT requirements

Here are some comments on the ECRIT requirements document:

R1.  This requirement seems to be saying that an ASP is not required,  
but the motivation goes on to explain that ASP is just not a  
traditional ASP, not that they do not run the application.

A6.  What is the purpose of this requirement?

L6.  I think the following should be added:  Validation of civic  
addresses MUST NOT be required to enable any feature that is part of  
the emergency call process.

-andy

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

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

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 18:06:33 -0400

> should precede any actual emergency call processing)?

Nadine,

You have identified three items:

1) ensure that the address will result in successful routing/mapping  
if used during an emergency call.

   Since this is not done during the emergency call, it would not be  
covered and is not part of the emergency call process.

2) avoid the necessity for default routing

   Determining that a call from a location does not need to resort to  
default routing also does not seem to be covered as this is not part  
of the emergency call process, or at least does not have to be part  
of the emergency call process.

3) avoid associated delays

   This would be covered as it seems to be a performance issue, which  
we only care about during the emergency call process.  A system  
designed only to avoid delays if validation has been conducted  
penalizes the areas of the world where validation does not occur.  It  
also has the undesired effect of requiring re-validation when parts  
of the system are reinitialized for other reasons.

-andy