Subject: RE: [Ecrit] draft-polk-dhc-uri-00

From: "McCalmont, Patti" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:28:27 -0500

Hi John,

HELD is just as much a part of the ECRIT discussion as DHCP, both are
dealing with location, a critical component required to route the
emergency call. Are you thinking we should also move this DHCP
discussion to the DHC group as well?

-----Original Message-----
From: John Schnizlein [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 9:21 AM
To: McCalmont, Patti
Cc: Andrew Newton; ECRIT; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] draft-polk-dhc-uri-00

Wouldn't it be reasonable to keep the discussion of the issues and 
claims with HELD in the GeoPriv WG where it has been?  We should not 
recapitulate that in this WG also.

John

On Sep 23, 2005, at 10:01 AM, McCalmont, Patti wrote:

> Wow.......guess we all know how you stand but......... even James Polk
> stated that one size won't fit all. HELD provides a solution for many
> other types of interfaces, such as Wireless as the mobile is moving.
It
> does take care of the embedded base and it meets other Carrier needs.
> Probably not a surprise, but I don't agree at all with your
statements.

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:21:15 -0400

HELD [draft-winterbottom-http-location-delivery-01.txt] was discussed 
extensively on the GeoPriv mailing list and at that WG's session of 
IETF 63.  James Winterbottom announced the -00 version February 22 on 
the GeoPriv list.  My impression was that the WG chairs and authors 
chose in which WG to pursue its technical review.  My suggestion is 
that we not start all that discussion over again here.  It seems 
wasteful to cover the same ground again in a different WG.  If the WG 
chairs want to recapitulate the HELD discussion here, it is OK with me. 
  I would recommend that those interested first read the material 
covered in GeoPriv.

There is a previous agreement between the chairs of the DHC WG that 
documents that involve both location semantics and DHCP should be 
discussed first in the WG most appropriate to the semantics, and then 
in the DHC WG regarding those issues that relate to the protocol.  On 
(the same day as posted here) September 12, James Polk solicited 
discussion of the DHCP aspects of his draft on the DHC mailing list, 
and it has received some.  Since most of the discussion of James' draft 
here on the ECRIT list has been about how this facility would 
contribute to the emergency-response system design, it seems to me that 
about the right balance between these WG discussions has occurred.

John

On Sep 26, 2005, at 10:28 AM, McCalmont, Patti wrote:
>>> It does take care of the embedded base and it meets other Carrier 
>>> needs.

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:50:52 -0400

On Sep 26, 2005, at 11:21 AM, John Schnizlein wrote:

> HELD [draft-winterbottom-http-location-delivery-01.txt] was  
> discussed extensively on the GeoPriv mailing list and at that WG's  
> session of IETF 63.  James Winterbottom announced the -00 version  
> February 22 on the GeoPriv list.  My impression was that the WG  
> chairs and authors chose in which WG to pursue its technical  
> review.  My suggestion is that we not start all that discussion  
> over again here.  It seems wasteful to cover the same ground again  
> in a different WG.  If the WG chairs want to recapitulate the HELD  
> discussion here, it is OK with me.  I would recommend that those  
> interested first read the material covered in GeoPriv.
>
> discussed first in the WG most appropriate to the semantics, and  
> then in the DHC WG regarding those issues that relate to the  
> protocol.  On (the same day as posted here) September 12, James  
> Polk solicited discussion of the DHCP aspects of his draft on the  
> DHC mailing list, and it has received some.  Since most of the  
> discussion of James' draft here on the ECRIT list has been about  
> how this facility would contribute to the emergency-response system  
> design, it seems to me that about the right balance between these  
> WG discussions has occurred.

Since I'm on the cc: list for this message and happen to be co-chair  
of GEOPRIV, I wonder if it is being directed at me for that reason.   
So I'll say the following:

1) Whether or not HELD conforms to the protocol and security  
requirements of GEOPRIV (RFCs 3693 and RFCs 3694) is a matter for the  
GEOPRIV working group.
2) Whether or not HELD can be discussed as a part of the solution to  
ECRIT is not a GEOPRIV matter.

-andy

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:53:06 +0200

hi john,
hi all,

although most all of us are subscribed to the relevant mailing lists 
(such as dhc, geopriv and ecrit, etc.) it seems to be natural to discuss 
plain geopriv topics on the geopriv mailing list. if a topic touches 
multiple working groups then post your mail to the relevant mailing 
lists. we need to be pragmatic here and consider the fact that there is 
obviously a lot of overlap. as a practical suggestion:
a) change the email subject header (as i did with this mail) and
b) split your feedback to different individual mails (if it touches 
different topics)

ciao
hannes

John Schnizlein wrote:

> chairs want to recapitulate the HELD discussion here, it is OK with 
> me. I would recommend that those interested first read the material 
> covered in GeoPriv.
>
> contribute to the emergency-response system design, it seems to me 
> that about the right balance between these WG discussions has occurred.
>
> John
>
>             It does take care of the embedded base and it meets other
>             Carrier needs.
>             Probably not a surprise, but I don't agree at all with
>             your statements.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>