Re: [Ecrit] Discussion on draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc-04

Marc,

Hannes and I pointed out what was going on in that WG to you and others well over 2 years ago, and the preliminary work in EMTEL even longer ago than that.
I have made suggestions on what you might do to evolve the ETSI architecture to fit your needs, but I have also pointed out the issue you likely to face trying to that in this release. I believe that the best course of action is request a new work item some time next year to perform this evolution. In the mean time trying to drive a solution in the IETF that your most likely customers don’t want is an exercise in futility.

I have stated why pure LbyR in LoST doesn’t work, and Brian has confirmed this. Nobody has said why returning routing information in HELD won’t work.
Responses to the list question are 2 for this proposal and 2 against. Hardly consensus in either direction. It is likely that I will not be able convince you or Brian of the merits of this proposal or the possible outcomes of doing something else, so I am not going to continue to try.

It would be good to have a few more people expressing on the list the direction they wish to take as I think that this will provide a better indication of the overall mood of the WG on this topic.

Cheers
James

On 30 Jul 2014, at 7:13 am, Marc Linsner (mlinsner) <mlinsner@cisco.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 at 4:58 PM
> To: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
> Cc: Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com>, "ecrit_ietf.org"
> <ecrit@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Discussion on draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc-04
> 
>> Brian,
>> 
>> If this really is your sentiment then why are we having this debate?
>> By your own admission LbyR in LoST requires at least some rough location,
>> this doesn¹t meet the requirements we have outlined.
>> The routing returned in HELD will meet the requirements in Europe, can¹t
>> we just get on with producing a spec please?
> 
> 
> The problem is the requirements are for the most part fallacious.
> 
> When queried why the VSP can¹t have LbyV if it¹s covered by their EULA,
> the answer is, in that case they can have LbyV.
> 
> -Marc-
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Cheers
>> James
>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Right, it's a query no matter which entity does it, or which protocol
>>>> is used.
>>> Yeah.  That¹s why even though I have a preference for LoST-does-LbyR, I
>>> am not really against HELD-returns-route.
>>> 
>>> Brian
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecrit mailing list
>> Ecrit@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> 