Subject: [Geopriv] Updated:draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-05.txt

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:01:57 -0600

Hi all,

Here's a summary of the changes in the -05 version reflecting WGLC
comments and subsequent mailing list discussion. In addition, Richard
Barnes sent a marked up version of the document with many editorial
changes and clarifications that have been made. It may be easiest to
review the diff. If you do see any issues or have additional suggestions
for changes, sending explicit text to the list makes the editting task
easier.  We are also reaching the point where we've tweaked the same
text many times over (onlist and then in the document revisions), so I'd
rather leave some things like whether extra commas are appropriate, etc.
to the RFC editor, unless the text actually conveys the wrong concept. 

1) Totally replaced the security section with the details provided by
Richard Barnes so that we don't need a reference to the location
security document. 

2) Fixed error codes in schema to allow extensibility. Change the IANA
registration to be "specification required". 

3) Cleaned up the HELD: URI description, per comments from Martin and
James and partially addressing HELD-04 Issue 1.  Put the definition in a
separate section and clarified the applicability (to also include being
a results of the discovery process) and fixed examples.

4) Updated the LocationURI section to be more accurate, address HELD-04
Issue 3, and include the reference to the new HELD:URI section. Also,
fixed an error in the doc in that the top level parm in the
locationResponse is actually locationUriSet, which contains any number
of locationURI elements and the "expires" parameter.  So, Table 1 was
also updated and a new section for the LocationURISet was added that
includes the subsections for the "locationURI" and "expires".   And,
then clarified  that "expires" applies to "locationURISet" and not per
"locationURI". 

5) Editorial nits:  pointed out offline by Richard (e.g., by-value -> by
value, by-reference -> by reference, etc.) and onlist by James and
Martin. Please refer to the diff for a complete view of editorial
changes.

6) Added text in HTTP binding section to disable HTTP caching (HELD-04
Issue 5 on the list).

There remain a couple of open issues based on past discussions and I'll
post separate items to address those (or respond to those past list
items).  

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 3:45 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Geopriv] I-D
Action:draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-05.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Geographic Location/Privacy Working
Group of the IETF.

	Title           : HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)
	Author(s)       : M. Barnes, et al.
	Filename        :
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-05.txt
	Pages           : 43
	Date            : 2008-02-22

A Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol (L7 LCP) is described that is
used for retrieving location information from a server within an access
network.  The protocol includes options for retrieving location
information in two forms: by value and by reference.  The protocol is an
extensible application-layer protocol that is independent of
session-layer.  This document describes the use of Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP) as a transport for the protocol.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-del
ivery-05.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of
the message.
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-05.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE
/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-05.txt".

NOTE:   The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail
readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:57:38 -0600

Folks -

This is a Last Call for comments on draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location- 
delivery-05.txt

As Mary notes below, the http-location-delivery draft had some fairly  
big touches in response to
the WGLC on -04, so we need to ask everyone to read _this_ version  
and make sure we're ready
to request publication.

Because of the timing of the impending IETF meeting, I'm setting the  
call for a little over 3 weeks.

Please have your comments in no later than March 21.

If at all possible, have your comments in before we get to the IETF  
meeting. Please put your primary focus
on making sure we've resolved the issues identified to date.

Do remember to send a note in if you've read the document and have no  
other comments other than
"its ready to go" - we need those as much as we need "I found a  
problem".

Mary notes a couple of issues that we will close in parallel with  
this review. Lets see if we can
reach closure on those this week.

Thanks!

RjS

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
> Date: February 22, 2008 5:01:57 PM CST
> To: "GEOPRIV" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [Geopriv] Updated:draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location- 
> delivery-05.txt
>
> Hi all,
>
> 5) Editorial nits:  pointed out offline by Richard (e.g., by-value - 
> > by

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:18:20 -0600

>Martin. Please refer to the diff for a complete view of editorial

this is interesting, and inconsistent from what the SIP chair (who 
only has an individual hat on, wrt this WG) had me change in SIP 
Location Conveyance to everything like (by-value) and  (by value) and 
(location-by-value) to  "LbyV", while adding a terminology section 
prior to the Intro in that doc stating

         Location-by-value and by-value and = LbyV

with the goal that I only use LbyV whenever Conveyance indicates 
location is in the SIP request.

He had me do the same for reference and by-reference (to 
"LbyR").  This is more applicable to this http-location ID.

I'm wondering about consistency from readers that read this 
http-location ID will likely read Location Conveyance and not have like terms.

This might be a thing of Robert Sparks and Keith Drage getting 
together... or maybe not.

James

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:24:47 +0100

As an individual...

What I am generally looking for in the use of abbreviations and terms is
consistency within the document. I suspect my comment in SIP in relation
to location conveyance was that I was seeing a mixture of terms and
abbreviation usage for the same thing within location conveyance itself,
and therefore we fixed on just using the abbreviation.

However James is correct that we may want to look at consistency between
two documents with similar function, providing we don't introduce
inconsistency within each document by doing so.

Personally, I don't have a problem with location-conveyance changing as
long as it remains internally consistent.

Regards

Keith

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:18 PM
> To: Mary Barnes; GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] 
> Updated:draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-05.txt
> 
> >5) Editorial nits:  pointed out offline by Richard (e.g., 
> by-value -> 
> >by value, by-reference -> by reference, etc.) and onlist by 
> James and 
> this is interesting, and inconsistent from what the SIP chair 
> (who only has an individual hat on, wrt this WG) had me 
> change in SIP Location Conveyance to everything like 
> (by-value) and  (by value) and
> (location-by-value) to  "LbyV", while adding a terminology 
> section prior to the Intro in that doc stating
> 
> with the goal that I only use LbyV whenever Conveyance 
> indicates location is in the SIP request.
> 
> This might be a thing of Robert Sparks and Keith Drage 
> getting together... or maybe not.
> 
> James
> 
>

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:29:52 -0600

I agree that in general consistency among documents is important and in
looking at the docs that are actually normative references for this one,
the location-by-value (LbyV) and location-by-reference (LbyR) are what
is used in draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-02. But,
draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-06.txt uses "location by Value (LbyV)" and
"location by Reference (LbyR)" (i.e., without the dashes, which was the
change I just made). 

I have no opinion whatsoever and honestly don't know if there is a right
thing to do gramatically. It is also possible that the RFC editor might
have their own standard and change it later no matter what we agree. As
Keith suggests, I don't know that it even matters that much, as long as
the terms and acronyms are used consistently within the same document.  

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 5:25 AM
To: James M. Polk; Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); GEOPRIV
Subject: RE: [Geopriv]

As an individual...

Regards

Keith

> He had me do the same for reference and by-reference (to "LbyR").  
> This is more applicable to this http-location ID.
>