[Ecrit] DISCUSS on draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req

["Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan, 

You wrote: 
"
I like the document and I belive that it's ready for approval, but I
have a
rather minor detail to clarify.

 Req-6:  The solution MUST work if PSAP boundaries have holes.  (For a
      discussion about holes in PSAP boundaries and their encoding the
      reader is referred to [I-D.ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes].)

I do not see how the requirement can be understood without understanding
the
concept of holes in PSAP or LoST service boundaries. This being a MUST
requirement it looks to me like [I-D.ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes] should
be a
Normative rather than Informative reference.
"

[I-D.ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes] specifies one specific way of encoding
holes in PSAP boundaries but the requirement itself is independent of
the chosen approach. 

So, in that sense I would believe there is no normative dependency.
However, if someone does not know what "a hole in a PSAP boundary" means
then they should better read a document and there is only one document
they can read from the IETF ECRIT group that explains this aspect. 

So, what you you suggest me to do? 

Ciao
Hannes