Re: [Sipping-tispan] Requirements -02g

[Miguel Garcia <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul:

I will let others, perhaps Roland, to answer your questions about the 
Calling Party Category. I suspect that the idea is to define an 
enumeration of values that can be used.

The current text has been directly imported from version -01 of the 
draft with minor wordsmith.

Regards,

        Miguel

Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> 
> 
> Miguel Garcia wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> I have a comment about one of the added requirements, than then some 
> response to your  questions. First, the added requirement:
> 
>> REQ-CAT-1: For service applicability to special groups and
>>            interoperability with the PSTN/ISDN, application servers
>>            providing services require to have an indication of the
>>            calling party category.  This is needed because some
>>             services apply a special behavior to certain user groups
>>            (e.g., like Pay-Phones).
> 
> 
> This isn't helpful without some additional information about calling 
> party category.
> - What is it?
> - Is it a single attribute with a well known enumeration of
>   possible values?
> - Or is the set of values open ended?
> - If the values are extensible, how does one learn of the definitions?
> - Are multiple values permitted?
>   (E.g. the caller is both "police" and "emergency-responder",
>    or both "operator" and "prison".)
> 
> Without this information it is impossible to evaluate the use of this to 
> enable services.
> 
>> 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?
> 
> 
> Seems reasonable to me.
> 
>> - 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).
> 
> 
> The existing wording does not seem at all sufficient to me to cover this 
> case. The following is in the description of ACR:
> 
>    services also contains provisions for exceptional cases where the
>    service is overridden.  ... Another case is when the caller
>    has been duly authorized to override the ACR service running at the
>    called party's network.  This is the case, e.g., when a police
>    officer or any other authority is anonymously calling to a user
>    having the ACR simulation service activated.
> 
> There are no requirements corresponding to this description. What 
> determines when a caller has been "duly authorized"? IMO the insertion 
> of a calling party category does not constitute any kind of 
> authorization. At best it is a kind of authentication.
> 
> As it stands, calling party category seems to be an attribute without 
> semantics, which could be used to do anything. I don't think that is good.
> 
>     Paul
> 
>> 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