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

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:10:49 -0700

Geopriv-ites,

Updating this consensus call, silence is not a response.  Please
give us a sense of the room.  Because it's so important to
get pidf-lo finished, the deadline for the responses is Friday
at 4 PM EDT (21:00 UTC).  

Allison

> 
> 
> 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: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 22:29:01 -0400

I support this additional information. This functionality is important 
for building maintainable systems that allow debugging and data 
consistency improvements. Without it, the usability of PIDF-LO for 
emergency calling would be endangered (or there would have to be 
proprietary extensions).

At an emergency-calling related meeting today, it was indicated that up 
to 25% of all initial location indications do not match street records, 
either because the address is wrong or because the the so-called Master 
Street Address Guide that records all streets within a community has not 
kept up with new construction and the like. Apparently, emergency 
calling agencies and maintainers of MSAGs have full-time staff that 
chase down these discrepancies. It would be very difficult to do this 
without such indication.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 10:16:33 -0700

Speaking as a working group participant, I support Andy's
proposal.
		regards,
			Ted Hardie

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:54:28 -0500

I'm late with this response. I wish it was the only thing I was late with 
this week :-(

I do not have a problem with this modification to the original proposal

BTW, Allison, one way to take your text below: "...James and company added 
the <provided-by> element alone..." is that this was the only suggestion I 
offered, as it was not the only element I offered.

I hope the text for the <method> element was acceptable to all and that the 
<provided-by> element was the only area of confusion/contention from my 
original email, but am not sure now.

Can you clarify that for me?

> > not meet community review standards, as our AD has told us?

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:33:58 -0700

James,

> original email, but am not sure now.

Sorry for the misleading wording.  It was not meant to 
refer to <method>.

I'm also assuming there were no objections to the <method>.  
Before we called the question about <provided-by>, we were in
the midst of a discussion about the whole text you provided,
and nothing came up.

Speaking as a participant, I did not have any concern with it.

Another mail shortly, putting back on my WG co-chair hat.

Allison