[Sipping-emergency] RE: Civil location syntax validation - was RE: How to handle Validation failures

Yeah, that's the way I see it. 

Validation is a requirement.
Validation is the first part of determining a route:
A query using the location information as the key.

Any answer is validation.  The answer is the route.

You can do the validation query without needing the route.
You do that as an independent verification that the
location information is valid.  Validation is
automatically performed when you determine the route,
either during a test operation as Henning describes,
or for the actual call (not implying whether route
determination is done prior to or at the time of 
an emergency call).

Jon, is that sufficient information to consider validation
within the charter?

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:54 AM
> To: 'Peterson, Jon'; 'Brian Rosen'; sipping-emergency@ietf.org
> Subject: Civil location syntax validation - was RE: How to handle
> Validation failures
> 
> Changed the subject line to more correctly describe the function.
> 
> Civil location syntax validation could be considered as a requirement when
> determining the routing design.  If routing is designed properly,
> validation
> will simply be a routing query that utilizes the response differently.
> Validation, in this context, does not include the verification that the
> device is actually located where it claims to be, it is simply a process
> that verifies that the syntax/value of the location provided describes a
> valid location known by all.  A simple routing query that produces a
> routing
> result is validation in this context.
> 
> 
> -Marc Linsner-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peterson, Jon [mailto:jon.peterson@neustar.biz]
> > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 7:42 PM
> > To: 'Brian Rosen'; 'Marc Linsner'; sipping-emergency@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: How to handle Validation failures was RE:
> > [Sipping-emergency] proposed charter, new wg on emergency
> >
> >
> >
> > > I changed the subject, as we are off the subject of a new
> > charter, as
> > > we agree validation should be in that charter.
> > >
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > I'm not sure that everyone on this distribution agrees that
> > validation should be in the scope of this proposed working
> > group. In fact, until I read your mail, I had gotten the
> > sense that several voices (including James, Marc and Nate)
> > were questioning this idea.
> >
> > I think validation as such is probably outside of the core
> > expertise of the IETF, whereas routing is more likely to be a
> > place where we can do some solid work. The expertise of the
> > IETF does not lie in subjects like whether Conrad St is in
> > Butler County or Pine Township, nor in recommending how you
> > might figure something like that out. Moreover, this seems to
> > be a back-end application issue, not a protocol issue, as I
> > think a number of people have already pointed out.
> >
> > I think that validation is a separable operation from
> > routing, even if it is a prerequisite in some operational
> > models. An umbrella specification that described everything
> > you needed to do in order to provide emergency services might
> > include validation, but that doesn't mean that the routing
> > protocol should change in any way because validation was or
> > was not performed. But I don't think the IETF has the breadth
> > to tackle that whole umbrella.
> >
> > Jon Peterson
> > NeuStar, Inc.
> >
> 
> 

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