Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Request for clarification: provided-by-uri

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:30:25 -0600

Thanks for the pointer Andy,

So to paraphrase those discussions: <provided-by> is included to facilitate after-the-fact diagnosis of problems for local emergency services.  Evidently there were objections to this being used unless there is a strong requirement that a responsible party be contacted.

Putting the emails together with the specification text is somewhat enlightening.  It would appear that the idea is to drastically limit the usage of <provided-by>.  The barriers - IANA registration, complexity - exist intentionally, so that organizations like NENA are the only ones that can use this information.  My impression is that these barriers exist so that due consideration is given to the privacy implications of including this information.

The intent of the URI draft was to lower the barriers without trivializing the privacy considerations.  My opinion is still that it doesn't conflict with the goals.  "Conflict" is a fairly unequivocal word; I never saw any outright opposition to using URIs (apart from one comment on scheme).  I still see value in the option, however limited.  That said; it looks like there isn't much support, so I'd be happy to drop it as well.

Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:14 AM
> To: Thomson, Martin
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Request for clarification: provided-by-uri
> 
> 
> On Dec 12, 2005, at 5:17 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> > I also fail to see how this conflicts with the extensibility
> > mechanisms - I closely followed Section 6.2 and the other parts of
> > the document.  Perhaps there are differences between the "intent"
> > of the document and my interpretation.
> 
> Actually, it conflicts with the goal of the mechanism.  If you go
> back and look at the discussion of how it got to be what it got to
> be, you'll see this was discussed already.
> 
> Start here: http://ecotroph.net/~anewton/hypermail/geopriv/
> 0403/1093.html
> 
> -andy

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

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