Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area Review for draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-06.txt

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On 11 April 2013 00:26, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Sorry I meant that you are honing in on HELD even outside of the
> specific example.

Ah yes, I am painfully aware of the sampling bias that arises from a
sample set of one.  However, that's what we have and it wouldn't be
practical to pretend otherwise.  Maybe there needs to be a disclaimer
along the lines of:

"This document attempts to provide generic capabilities that apply to
any location request protocol.  In practice however, only the HELD
protocol [RFC5985] has been considered.  Use of these capabilities in
other protocols could require additional adaptation."

Though that would be a small lie.  Other protocols have been
considered.  I'm aware of at least 3 that could use these
capabilities.  I just don't think that any of those protocols wants
these extensions (for a range of other reasons).

>> I can see how you might want to have a separate document for the
>> measurement "request", such as it is, but that doesn't fare especially
>> well outside of the context of the document, so we decided to keep
>> this together with the measurement definitions.
>
> That's right, and I don't think you should create a separate spec.  Now
> it's been a while since I did the review but I recall traipsing through
> HELD to try to determine whether in fact this spec updates that spec.
> If so that should be indicated.

Ah yes, our document shepherd asked this same question, to wit I
answered: This draft exercises extension points established by <the
document in question: RFC5985> and therefore does not need to update
that document.

We knew about this work when we published HELD, so made sure that the
extension points were available.