AW: [Sipping-tispan] Requirements -02g

["Jesske, R" <[e-mail]>]

For me is it OK

Roland

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von 
> ZhouQing(Justin)
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. September 2005 12:23
> An: Miguel Garcia; [e-mail]
> Cc: Alexeitsev, Denis
> Betreff: Re: [Sipping-tispan] Requirements -02g
> 
> 
> Hi Migule,
> 
> In case CDIV, I think it's better to change REQ-CDIV-1 as 
> followed to make it consistent with REQ-CDIV-3 and REQ-CDIV-4,
> From:
> It must be possible that the caller is informed that a 
> communication is being diverted. 
> To: 
> It must be possible for the caller, the callee, and network 
> intermediaries to be informed that a communication is being diverted. 
> How do you think?
> 
> A short tiping error in REQ-CDIV-4, callee instead of caleee.
> 
> Regards,
> Justin
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Miguel Garcia" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Alexeitsev, D" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 7:25 PM
> Subject: [Sipping-tispan] Requirements -02g
> 
> 
> > Hi:
> > 
> > I have this working copy of the requirements, version -02g:
> > 
> > 
> http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-jesske-sippin
> g-tispan-requirements-02g.txt
> > 
> http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-jesske-sippin
> g-tispan-requirements-02g.html
> > 
> > And a diff version with respect -02f:
> > 
> > 
> http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-jesske-sippin
> g-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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sipping-tispan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-tispan
> 

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