Subject: [Geopriv] SIP Location Conveyance

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:39:18 +0300

I might be wrong but my previous query stopped at the point where we 
spoke about the next steps.

So, who is going to write a summary of the discussion we had at the last 
IETF meeting?

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

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:49:54 -0500

We are waiting on a revised draft from Jon capturing those  
conversations (who I will re-ping).
We will make a GEOPRIV consensus call on that draft and pass the  
result to SIP.

RjS

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:09:17 -0700

>We will make a GEOPRIV consensus call on that draft and pass the

Do you want the revised draft to be submitted as draft-geopriv- ?

				Ted

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:16:54 -0500

(Typing based on memory rather than looking at notes - if memory has  
drifted from reality don't hesitate to correct me).

Hadn't planned on it, but if you feel that's the most appropriate  
thing to do, let me know.
I was expecting the draft to be ephemeral and its contents captured  
for the long run in other documents.
Do you think it should be published on its own?

RjS

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:15:12 -0700

>Do you think it should be published on its own?

I think the key thing that Keith Drage wants is a strong sense
that this is GeoPriv's consensus and that he can count on it not changing.
I think making it a geopriv working group document helps
bolster that sense; if we have to, we can then ask for informational
status and publish it.  As  you say, it may turn out that
some other form of consensus call will do, but that's the  usual
way something gets declared to be the consensus of a group.

				Ted

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:18:18 -0500

I don't object to proceeding this way. If anyone here does, speak up  
now.

RjS

On Apr 29, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:

>>>>> So, who is going to write a summary of the discussion we had at  
>>>>> the
>>>>> last
>>>>> IETF meeting?
>>>>>
>>>>>

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:13:19 -0500

Are we talking about draft-peterson-geopriv-retransmission-00.txt?

If so, I have no objection.  I agree with the conclusions and analysis
in that document.

If, on the other hand, we're talking about a new draft-ietf-geopriv-
document that I haven't yet seen, I might have to object.

Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Robert Sparks
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 April 2008 2:18 AM
> To: Ted Hardie
> Cc: GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] SIP Location Conveyance
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

---

From: "Hardie, Ted" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:19:06 -0700

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thomson, Martin [[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:13 PM
To: Robert Sparks; Hardie, Ted
Cc: GEOPRIV
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] SIP Location Conveyance

Martin

We're talking about making a successor version to
draft-peterson-geopriv-transmission a draft-ietf-geopriv (and
potentially publishing it) so that a statement of consensus on
it clearly means "this is the opinion of geopriv" as opposed to
"geopriv agrees to publishing to the opinion of these individuals".
There are other ways of getting to that, but that's the basic
reasoning.

Ted

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:41:07 +0200

I don't think we need an RFC out of this, but if GEOPRIV wants to do
that, then that is fine.

What we need is a declared and archived consensus position from GEOPRIV
on the contents, or not the contents, so that SIP can proceed with
location conveyance.

I think the problem in the past has been that we have never really found
a consensus position (from SIP), and the wind keeps changing, depending
on who speaks longest at the mic, etc. And as a result, we kept changing
the text in location-conveyance, and still not everyone was happy. With
that happening, we can never finish the document.

Regards

Keith 

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:17 PM
> To: Ted Hardie
> Cc: GEOPRIV
> (Typing based on memory rather than looking at notes - if 
> memory has drifted from reality don't hesitate to correct me).
> 
> Hadn't planned on it, but if you feel that's the most 
> appropriate thing to do, let me know.
> I was expecting the draft to be ephemeral and its contents 
> captured for the long run in other documents.
> >>> So, who is going to write a summary of the discussion we 
> had at the
> >>> last
> >>> IETF meeting?
> >>>
> >>>