Re: [Sipping-emergency] Re: Emergency-req: 8-12

Henning,

 Since this is a requirements document, I'm trying to
 exhaustively list all possible options, not pick favorites.

A requirements document should be more generic.  There's 
almost a sense that you and James are writing an quasi-RFP
for US and European centers.  Your words give the sense of 
avoiding "the" solution by giving ranges of them.

The goal should be to give the problem with some clarity to
SIPPING so that the group can determine 1. if it's a necessary
one for the WG.  2. if it's one that can be done with existing 
SIP capabilities and whether they have issues such as security
strengths that might need modifications (a number of times SIPPING
has found that the feature was fine, but it needed some normative
modification).  3.  if not, what requirements there are for new
SIP capabilities.  I see far less generic material in the current
draft.

I too am working to deadlines this weekend, so this comment must
be brief, but I have a real concern for what we will see from
this draft.

Allison
_______________________________________________
Sipping-emergency mailing list
Sipping-emergency@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-emergency