Subject: [Geopriv] -retransmission- comments needed ASAP

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:38:49 -0500

Folks -

I need feedback from more people to know whether or not to pubrequest  
this version of the draft or if we need to take it back again. It will  
also inform how we build Minneapolis' agenda.

Specifically:

We agreed in Dublin to change the language in this draft such that we  
leave the engineering of syntax to SIP. The editors have tried to do  
this by saying the formulation built in this document is an example.  
My question to the group is does this document, with the concrete  
syntax proposal _as an example_ have enough data in it for the  
contributors to the effort in SIP to build whatever syntax they want  
and get the location privacy considerations we're informing them about  
right?

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:53:38 -0400

I think it's generally a bad idea to mingle requirements and  
background documents with protocol proposals, so I would simply  
replace the example section with something like

"The permission to route on location information can be conveyed with  
a new SIP header field, an extension of PIDF-LO, a flag on the Geo- 
Location header field and possibly other mechanisms. Details and trade- 
offs are beyond the scope of this document."

If there's specific advice that we really need to capture as to which  
is better, we can do this, but such discussions used to be done in  
mailing list archives, not RFCs, before the IETF succumbed to TPS  
report mentality.

I don't think anybody in the SIP working group is so abstraction- 
challenged that they need to be given a bogus header name to imagine  
what a header field looks like. Creating bogus header names either  
prejudges the syntax discussion outcome or creates confusion if the  
final outcome looks different.

Henning

On Oct 30, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:

> Folks -
>
> I need feedback from more people to know whether or not to  
> pubrequest this version of the draft or if we need to take it back  
> again. It will also inform how we build Minneapolis' agenda.
>
> Specifically:
>
> We agreed in Dublin to change the language in this draft such that  
> we leave the engineering of syntax to SIP. The editors have tried to  
> do this by saying the formulation built in this document is an  
> example. My question to the group is does this document, with the  
> concrete syntax proposal _as an example_ have enough data in it for  
> the contributors to the effort in SIP to build whatever syntax they  
> want and get the location privacy considerations we're informing  
> them about right?
>
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:29:55 -0500

At 04:53 PM 10/30/2008, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>Location header field and possibly other mechanisms. Details and 
>trade- offs are beyond the scope of this document."

this is something I'd really like; especially if section 3.6 were 
included in what the above paragraph replaces.

In fact, if all of section 3 of the current version (-01) took the 
philosophy of Henning's suggested quoted paragraph above (i.e., what 
he says in the paragraph below were written with this same 
philosophy), I'd probably drop my whole objection (and counterproposal ID).