Re: draft-ietf-ieprep-sip-reqs-00.txt
<Mpierce1 <at> aol.com>
2002-08-27 12:49:54 GMT
Comments on draft-ietf-ieprep-sip-reqs-00:
2. Instead of CN for the abbreviation, I would suggest SCN (Switched Circuit Network).
3. (End of page 4)
Refers to "four resources" although text above just defined five.
4. End of section again refers to four resources (gateway, CN, IP network resources, and receiver). The text in Section 3 also defined SIP proxy resources.
The meaning of the (x) in the table is not clear. For example, although it says that (x) means the resource is in the CN, the first row in the table which is the IP-only case has an (x).
REQ-1 implies that the U.S. defense network priority scheme is different than Q.735. It is identical. NATO requirements (also five levels) are also the same.
The British Government Telephone Preference Scheme (GTPS) is fundamentally different. It does not control call setup beyond simply determining who gets dial tone.
I suggest this requirement should read:
-----------------------------------------------------------
REQ-1: Not specific to one mechanism or country: The mechanism should not be specific to one country or particular priority mechanism. For example, there are currently several different priority schemes in widespread use: Q.735 with five levels, which is the same as the U.S. defense network and NATO; the United States GETS (Government Emergency Telecommunications Systems) scheme with a single implied higher priority; and the British Government Telephone Preference Scheme (GTPS) system, which provides three priority levels for receipt of dial tone.
-----------------------------------------------------------
REQ-12 Need to make it clear that the "existing schemes" refers to the PSTN and the "future schemes" refers to the plan for IP.
7. The statement that priority mechanisms can be categorized by priority queue or preemption is a little restrictive. There are other mechanisms which don't fit in either of these two, such as alternate routing and exemption from traffic controls. Most of these additional ones could be categorized as making additional resources available to the priority calls. I would suggest something like:
--------------------------------
Most priority mechanisms can be roughly categorized by whether they:
- use a priority queue for resource attempts
- make additional resources available
- preempt existing resource users (e.g., calls.)
The choice ...
---------------------------------
SEC-9 (Confidentiality) should be separated somewhat from ETS. While it is true that many emergency calls would want confidentiality, many regular calls also do. Further, the lack of confidentiality would not be a reason for not allowing an ETS call to go through, as implied by the statement "must be protected".
Since "intercept" is often understood to refer to "lawful intercept", this statement about "protected from intercept" should be changed to read "unlawful intercept".
SEC-10 Same comment as for SEC-9.
Mike Pierce
Artel
RSS Feed