Subject: [Geopriv] Consensus call on <provided-by>

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:39:01 -0700

We're a ways past the end of the wglc on pidf-lo, so we'd like to call
consensus on this discussion of <provided-by> and move pidf-lo forward.

The original text from James and company added the <provided-by>
element alone.  It offered a discussion of the risks and privacy
concerns related to the URI following this element.  Ted Hardie, as
our Area Director, noted that a general URI here would continue to be
unacceptable, because of the potential for unresolvable forms or
even harmful forms.  

Following discussion on the list, Andy proposed adding an XML namespace
for <provided-by>.  Under an XML namespace design, the objections
to the general URI are gone. 

Could people send in their thoughts and comments on the XML namespace
proposal for <provided-by>?  Please send in thoughts if you are in
support of it, as well as if you have issues with it.  If you have
issues with it, what would work in its place, since a general URI will
not meet community review standards, as our AD has told us?

Allison

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

---

From: "Abbott, Nadine B." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:03:51 -0400

Allison,

I favor Andy's proposal for an XML namespace.
See related contributions to discussion from NENA.

A revision to the proposed XML from NENA to support it is coming soon, to
revise 24x7 contact number to a tel.uri, and possibly to rename the schema
to more closely align it with the data element being defined.  (Thought I
sent the tel.uri revision Monday, but it's not on the email thread so I
guess I didn't.  Sorry.)

Nadine Abbott

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Allison Mankin
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 10:39 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Geopriv] Consensus call on <provided-by>

The original text from James and company added the <provided-by> element
alone.  It offered a discussion of the risks and privacy concerns related to
the URI following this element.  Ted Hardie, as our Area Director, noted
that a general URI here would continue to be unacceptable, because of the
potential for unresolvable forms or even harmful forms.  

Following discussion on the list, Andy proposed adding an XML namespace for
<provided-by>.  Under an XML namespace design, the objections to the general
URI are gone. 

Could people send in their thoughts and comments on the XML namespace
proposal for <provided-by>?  Please send in thoughts if you are in support
of it, as well as if you have issues with it.  If you have issues with it,
what would work in its place, since a general URI will not meet community
review standards, as our AD has told us?

Allison

---

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:00:06 -0400

I think it's a technical punt on time grounds,  but I can live
with it.  It has a real unfortunate "political" problem,
which is that the only proposed entry in the name space
is a North American solution.

Brian

> From: Allison Mankin [mailto:[email-masked]]