Roger,
Thanks for doing the hard work.
My comments are in-line:
On Aug 6, 2005, at 3:05 AM, Roger Marshall wrote:Comments to A6: I think we all have a sense of what backward-compatibility means, which (at least to me) would equate to the idea that whatever protocol that ecrit comes up with for emergency routing, that it'll work for legacy (pre-ecrit) handsets.
Perhaps a simpler, alternate wording is in order, such as:
A6. Backward-compatible:"> Emergency routing protocols and functions MUST be backward-compatible for use with existing devices.
I still do not understand this requirement.
I also do not understand this requirement (now).
If this working group creates a method for emergency call routing that does not already exist, which is the purpose of this group, then by definition it will not be backwards compatible with existing devices. When I read this requirement, to me it indicates that we either are not producing a new standards track document or we should close down the working group.
Perhaps there needs to be more definition with regard to the meaning of "backward-compatible".
Is it backwards-compatible message routing?
Is it backwards-compatible addressing?
Which, or all 3?
-andy
_______________________________________________ Ecrit mailing list Ecrit at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
cheers, James
*******************
Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented._______________________________________________ Ecrit mailing list Ecrit at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit