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

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

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
>