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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hannes, 

I can go with the later proposal. The rough rule of thumb in such
situations is that if a reference is needed in order to understand the
document in review than this reference should be normative. In this case
adding a sentence that explains what a "hole in a PSAP boundary" means
would eliminate the need for another document where a definition of the
hole can be found to be made a normative reference. 

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:15 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: DISCUSS on draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req
> 
> I did see the differentiation between normative and 
> information in a slightly different fashion, as I responded 
> to Alexey. 
> 
> With the holes document there would not necessarily be a 
> problem to put it into the normative dependency section but 
> then I would have to follow the suggestion by Alexey as well 
> and the consequence is that there is a large list of 
> informative documents in the normative reference section that 
> only provide background on certain subjects. 
> 
> I could, to address your specific comment, also add a 
> sentence saying what a "hole in a PSAP boundary" means. 
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ext Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >Sent: 21 February, 2010 09:46
> >To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> >Cc: [e-mail]
> >Subject: RE: DISCUSS on draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req
> >
> > 
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) 
> >> [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 9:27 AM
> >> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: DISCUSS on draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req
> >> 
> >> 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
> >> 
> >
> >Yes - the problem is that the document lacks a definition of what "a 
> >hole in a PSAP  boundary" means. That 'one document they can 
> read from 
> >the IETF ECRIT group that explains this aspect' should be a 
> normative 
> >reference IMO. What document are we talking about - 
> >[I-D.ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes] or something else? The 
> alternative is 
> >to define the term here.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Dan
> >
>