RE: [Ecrit] Performance Requirement

["Brian Rosen" <br at brianrosen.net>]

There is a difference between a "motivational" paragraph discussing the
problem and an actual requirement.  The former is non normative.

All of the proposals use caching.  I don't see a problem saying that the
performance requirement is measured when caching "works" as intended in the
mechanism.  We can use weasel words like "to the extent caching is employed
in the mechanism, the goal of 500ms would be measured when caching
strategies in the mechanism work".

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy at hxr.us] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 8:44 AM
To: Brian Rosen
Cc: 'ECRIT'
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Performance Requirement


On Aug 2, 2005, at 8:18 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> Rohan suggested we remove the D5 requirement and replace it with a  
> motivational section, since there was no requirement.  I think we  
> should have a concrete goal, with a motivation for how we came to  
> the goal.  I propose:
>
>
>
> The time required to map SHOULD be 500ms, assuming normal caching  
> strategies in the mechanism work.  The maximum time SHOULD be 1  
> second.
>
>
>
> Motivation: Total time from last digit pressed to ring at the PSAP  
> should be two seconds.  Allocating one quarter of that to the  
> mapping mechanism seems reasonable, and achievable if caching  
> mechanisms work well enough for a single element to determine the  
> mapping.
I believe that if we continue applying 2119 language, then specifying  
it as a gaol or a requirement has no difference.  Also, the mechanism  
specifies caching.  Given we don't know what the requirements are for  
caching, we should avoid this language.

-andy



_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit