Comment 2448
Accepted (Resolved)
NENA-STA-015.10-201X_DataFormats_PubRvw (Revision 0)
Comment Submitted by
Jerry Eisner-ENP
2017-12-22 11:25:35

"Third, any existing uses of non-standardized “Service Descriptions” in the Customer Name/Service field SHOULD promptly be reviewed and cease to be used thereafter to the extent not inconsistent with the new seven standardized “Service Descriptions” in Section 20, and that “Service Descriptions” will only be added as a result of future changes to this document and Section 20." is directing a data provider e.g. a OSP, what to do.  That is currently and historically out of bounds for NENA.

Also, the use of a double negative "not inconsistent" is unnecesssary and confusing.

Submitter Proposed Solution

"Third, any existing uses of non-standardized “Service Descriptions” in the Customer Name/Service field SHOULD promptly be reviewed by the PSAP community.  Any records found to be inconsistent with the new seven standardized “Service Descriptions” in Section 20 should have ALI Discrepency Reports filed with the data provider."

 

Mr. Richard Muscat
2018-02-20 2:05 pm EST

Accepted, and revised to read as follows:

Third, any existing uses of non-standardized “Service Descriptions” in the Customer Name/Service field SHOULD promptly be reviewed by the PSAP community.  Any records found to be inconsistent with the new seven standardized “Service Descriptions” in Section 20 should have ALI Discrepancy Reports filed with the data provider. 

Mr. Richard Muscat
2018-02-28 4:43 pm EST

From: Jerry Eisner [mailto:jeisner@redskytech.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 9:46 AM
To: Richard Muscat <Richard@bexarmetro.com>
Subject: RE: Jerry Eisner comments on NENA-STA-015.10-201X_DataFormats_PubRvw

Good morning,

I have been following the KAVI updates.  It’s all good to go as far as I am concerned.

Thanks,

Jerry