Subject: [Geopriv] Agenda Items for IETF 64.

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:26:41 -0400

The WG and BOF schedule is up for IETF 64.
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/agenda_64.txt

A careful read shows that GEOPRIV has 2 two-hour time slots.
We have asked for the second session so that we can dedicate some  
time to getting issues with draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-06.txt and  
draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-05.txt out of the way.

So, if you have agenda items for our two sessions at IETF 64, please  
send them to the co-chairs or to this list (the latter being preferred).

-andy 

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:44:27 -0400

I'm confused as to the open issues for the common-policy draft. I 
thought we had a long and concluding discussion in Paris; I'm not sure 
how productive it would be to repeat this on a different continent. But 
I'm probably missing things.

Andrew Newton wrote:
> We have asked for the second session so that we can dedicate some  time 
> to getting issues with draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-06.txt and

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:52:55 -0400

On Oct 12, 2005, at 10:44 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> thought we had a long and concluding discussion in Paris; I'm not  
> sure how productive it would be to repeat this on a different  
> continent. But I'm probably missing things.

Given that these are GEOPRIV working group documents, do you not  
think any resolutions reached in other venues should be vetted or at  
least sent to the GEOPRIV working group for review?

-andy

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:30:35 -0400

I probably shouldn't get in the middle of an inter-WG debate, but my 
recollection from Paris was that the SIMPLE discussion of the draft was 
meant to address both audiences and was timed and announced to allow 
such participation. Clearly, if there are open issues, we should discuss 
them, but reaching closure and getting drafts done is also a good thing.

Andrew Newton wrote:
> Given that these are GEOPRIV working group documents, do you not  think 
> any resolutions reached in other venues should be vetted or at  least 
> sent to the GEOPRIV working group for review?
> 
> -andy