Re: AW: [Sipping-tispan] Requirements -02g

[Miguel Garcia <[e-mail]>]

Comments taken into account in a newer revision.

/Miguel

Schmidt, Christian wrote:

> Hi Miguel,
> 
> according to previous mail exchange, there was an agreement to skip the override
> feature for ACR. There are still parts in the draft relatated to this feature.
> Therefor I propose to delete:
> - section 3.2 (ACR): "Another case is when the caller has been duly authorized to override... service activated."
> - section 4 (Security Considerations): "The ACR service described in 3.2 allows authorized users to override ...decision is made."
> 
> REV-CDIV-4: some typing errors: caleee > callee, availble > available.
> 
> Regards,
> Christian
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von Miguel Garcia
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. September 2005 13:26
> An: '[e-mail]'
> Cc: Alexeitsev, D
> Betreff: [Sipping-tispan] Requirements -02g
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> I have this working copy of the requirements, version -02g:
> 
> http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-requirements-02g.txt
> http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-requirements-02g.html
> 
> And a diff version with respect -02f:
> 
> http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-requirements-02f-to-g.html
> 
> The changes in this version are:
> - Grouping of the CCBS/CCNR requirements for better understing
> - A few clarifications to the CDIV requirements
> - Addition of the Calling Party Category requirements.
> 
> Now, I have a few questions.
> 
> - The Calling Party Category requirements do not constitute a service by 
>   itself. In my opinion, they should be General requirements listed a 
> REQ-GEN-4 and REQ-GEN-5. Does anyone oppose to move them to the General 
> section?
> 
> - We had a pending action point to revisit the ACR requirements once we 
> have drafted the Calling Party Category requirements. Now we have 
> achieved this state, and my opinion is that we don't need to add any 
> extra wording to ACR, since the Calling Party Category requirements 
> cover the use case we have been discussing (police anonymously call a 
> user with ACR activated).
> 
> Last, but not least, WE ARE ALMOST DONE with the requirements. So please 
> take a look at this draft and comment on any pending issue. I would like 
> to solve issues as soon as possible and submit the draft for publication.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>          Miguel
> 

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:[phone]
sip:[e-mail]
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland


_______________________________________________
Sipping-tispan mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-tispan