Diego,In my experience in talking about this feature with carriers is that some (but not all) will require such symmetric behavior. I think the other rational for this feature are irrelevant. Again, the sole reason I've seen for this requirement is that to deploy MP->CP some will require that there be support for CP->MP.
I therefore think the definition of CP->MP *is* required. There are multiple options for meeting this requirement, but the solution must provide the "fallback" capability for services existing at the time of the initial MP->CP transition and those created after the transition.
I think a SHOULD level requirement is sufficient for this capability, but I'd be interested if those representing carries on the list differ.
Lou At 03:09 AM 8/24/2006, Diego Caviglia wrote:
In my mind the CP->MP feature can be useful for mainly two purposes: 1) symmetricity with the companion feature (MP->CP) [...] We (the authors of the ID) agreed with Dimitri that CP->MP is not a must and I have no problem to move it to should/shall/may state. [...] However the focus of the ID is on MP->CP handover and if the community is strongly against of CP->MP even in the form of a should/shall/may requirement we can strip this out. Regards Diego