Re: [Ecrit] Requesting IETF LC for phonebcp

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 14:25:46 -0600
To: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Cc: <ecrit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Requesting IETF LC for phonebcp - Minor IM issue

><hat type="individual" />
>
>(I saw this on the XMPP list first, so my extended reply is there.  I
>just sent it, so can't provide a link yet.)
>
>I do not think we should add XMPP to phonebcp at this point.  Even though
>XMPP for emergency services is a great idea, it would not be a trivial
>addition.  Let's let phonebcp go to RFC and handle XMPP in an update.
>
>--Richard
>
>
>
>
>On Feb 8, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
>
>> Yes, I agree.
>> 
>> I'm certain we will have a rev due to LC comments, and I will fix the
>>text in that rev.
>> 
>> concur with Bernard on xmpp.
>> 
>> Brian
>> 
>> On Feb 8, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree with this comment -- both should be required in the PSAP, not
>>>the endpoint. 
>>> 
>>> On XMPP support for emergency services, that is probably something
>>> to bring to the XMPP WG (or the XSF).  The question will remain open
>>> until there is documentation, either describing how it can be done, or
>>> explaining why it is not supported.  Until then, phonebcp should
>>>probably
>>> remain silent. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:28:36 +0100
>>> > From: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
>>> > To: ecrit@ietf.org
>>> > Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Requesting IETF LC for phonebcp - Minor IM issue
>>> > 
>>> > I think I discussed a need for a minor change in September.
>>> > 
>>> > It is in the Media chapter 14.
>>> > 
>>> > This statement:
>>> > "ED-75 Endpoints supporting Instant Messaging (IM) MUST support both
>>> > [RFC3428] and [RFC4975]."
>>> > 
>>> > It looks strange to require both IM protocols of the endpoint.
>>>Usually 
>>> > they support one. The requirement would be suitable for a PSAP.
>>> > 
>>> > So, the agreement was to change to:
>>> > 
>>> > "ED-75 Endpoints supporting Instant Messaging (IM) MUST support
>>>either 
>>> > [RFC3428] or [RFC4975]."
>>> > 
>>> > ( maybe there is now even an interest to add XMPP to that list, or
>>>do we 
>>> > then open for a heap of complications regarding addressing and
>>>location 
>>> > information etc. )
>>> > 
>>> > I do not regard this to be a subtantial issue, so I did not want to
>>> > bother the ietf mail list with it.
>>> > 
>>> > /Gunnar
>>> > 
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > >> At 04:37 PM 2/7/2011, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>> > >>> All -
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> I've requested IETFLC for the phonebcp draft. There are still
>>>some outstanding questions/comments from John Elwell that should be
>>>treated as last call comments.
>>> > >>> Also, something needs to register the sos.*.test URNs. I think
>>>this document could do that.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> RjS
>>> > >>> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>> Ecrit mailing list
>>> > >>> Ecrit@ietf.org
>>> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > Ecrit mailing list
>>> > > Ecrit@ietf.org
>>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Ecrit mailing list
>>> > Ecrit@ietf.org
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ecrit mailing list
>>> Ecrit@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecrit mailing list
>> Ecrit@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>Ecrit@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit