RE: [Ecrit] comments on ECRIT requirements

["Roger Marshall" <RMarshall at telecomsys.com>]

All:
In reference to comments received on requirement A6
"Backward-Compatible", I will considering deleting this from the draft
if there is no champion for it.  It is problematic to me for the
following reasons:

Definition of the term to everyone's satisfaction may be difficult,
since the term's use has a wide breadth of use.

Lack of clarity as to the essential meaning of the term, as James points
out.  Is it backward-compatible message routing? Signaling protocol, or
addressing?


Roger Marshall

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk at cisco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 8:54 PM
To: Andrew Newton; Roger Marshall
Cc: ECRIT
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] comments on ECRIT requirements

At 03:34 AM 8/6/2005 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
>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".

I agree here - maybe we need to define first exactly what this phrase
means 
to everyone.

Is it backwards-compatible message routing?

Is it backwards-compatible signaling protocol and which extensions?
meaning: for SIP, is it only 3261 elements, or 3261 plus the 34 PS-RFCs 
since 3261?

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