Subject: [Geopriv] WGLC on draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance

From: "Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:35:23 +0100

(As SIP WG chair)

I have sent the following message to the SIP list. The WGLC is also appropriate for members of the GEOPRIV working group. However please follow the instructions for comments in this mail, and DO NOT send them to the GEOPRIV list.

This is to announce a working group last call of 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-07.txt

Due to the presence of IETF#68 in Prague, this is an extended last call (for four weeks), and comments should be provided by start of business on Monday 2nd April 2007.

However if you think there are significant technical issues that should be raised in IETF#68, please review the document well before that time to make your comment to the list, so that such discussion in the IETF meeting can occur.

Please provide all comments to the SIP mailing list, and also to the document authors listed (and mailing addresses) listed at the end of the document. For each comment, it is ideal to provide the copy the specific part of the text the comment is against, in order to provide context of the comment, as well as identifying the section/page and the comment itself. 

Please also clearly indicate whether the comment is editorial/technical, and if technical the degree of the comment, e.g. minor, major flaw, wrong solution, or whatever. This helps in assessing the order in which comments get addressed when they are reviewed.

In parallel with WGLC, a review team has also been set up to review the document, and this review team will review at least the significant comments for implementation. I will be addressing them in a separate mail.

As the document is a location supporting protocol, the document will also be reviewed by the GEOPRIV group. However it is appropriate for all readers to review the document against the GEOPRIV requirements for such protocols, which may be found in RFC 3963.

The above document however does not cover location by reference. There is a preliminary set or requirements in 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-marshall-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-00.txt

For which we would like to align with whatever that document develops into. Therefore it is appropriate to review against this document, and identify differences. These could either be taken as comments against the draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance, or against the location by reference requirements.

Regards

Keith

Keith Drage
+44 1793 776249
[email-masked]

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