[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
The discussion for the need of an applicability statement was NEVER
resolved, as NO consensus was reached. So no applicability statement
should ever have been added to the document.
A number of people decided to construct an applicability statement and
have attempted to now have it ratified without the need for an
applicability statement being clearly demonstrated or agreed to by the
working group.
If, and only if, a consensus to include an applicability statement is
reached should the wording included by Brian be looked at. I still
vehemently oppose the inclusion of any applicability statement and I
don't want to consider any wording until a consensus is reached on us
requiring an applicability statement.
Cheers
James
-----Original Message-----
From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Edge, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, 28 April 2009 3:42 PM
To: Richard Barnes; Gellens, Randall; ECRIT
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
All
The statement "The underlying protocols can also be used to support
other models in which parts of the process are delegated to the
Communications Service Provider" seems applicable to the 3GPP/3GPP2
solution - e.g. because it does not say that all the protocols must be
used, nor does it say that other protocols must not be used, but is
consistent with a selection of some subset. (That is also applicable to
the preferred Ecrit solution which allows choice of LCP in the network.)
So I support the current applicability statement and, based on the very
long discussion that it took to get to that, foresee a possibly equally
long discussion ahead if this issue has to be restarted.
Kind Regards
Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Richard Barnes
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 9:42 PM
To: Gellens, Randall
Cc: ECRIT
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
Ok, we clearly need to revise the text, since that's a pretty serious
misunderstanding. The text doesn't constrain the use of the protocols
at all -- in fact it says "they underlying protocols can also be used to
support other models in which parts of the process are delegated to the
Communications Service Provider". For example, in the 3GPP model, an
E-CSCF could do everything on behalf of the endpoint, but could still
use SIP for calling, LoST for PSAP URI discovery, and HELD for location
retreival.
The point of the current text is just that those scenarios aren't
discussed in this draft, not that the overall model doesn't apply to
those scenarios.
--Richard
Randall Gellens wrote:
> I hum for the text, which doesn't constrain the use of the protocols,
> but merely describes the assumptions under which it works. As such,
it
> is useful and helpful. Even for those who think the assumptions are
> obvious, it does no harm to state them.
>
> We had a lot of debate on this in SFO, and the text in this version
was
> discussed on the mailing list in the days during and following the
meeting.
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]