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

I support #1 because LOST is not going to be deployed in some European
countries.
Additionaly, in countries with multiple  emergency services providers, the
proposal makes things easier for access network providers because they
would need a trust relationship with only one emergency service provider.
With LOST, they would need  trust relationships with multiple emergency
service providers.

Thank you
Laura

2014-07-28 15:22 GMT+02:00 Marc Linsner (mlinsner) <mlinsner@cisco.com>:

>  All,
>
>  This draft was presented in a compressed time slot at the Toronto
> meeting last week.  James W. has indicated an urgency to move this work
> forward.  The chairs are asking everyone to review this from the
> perspective of adopting this draft as a wg item.  So, please review this
> from the overall architectural value of providing emergency call routing
> within a HELD req/response (protocol details and word smithing can be done
> after it becomes a wg item).
>
>  Since James has indicated this work will be used by other SDOs, and
> coupled with the stated urgency, the chairs request that you review the
> draft and indicate to the list by COB Wednesday August 6, 2014 your opinion:
>
>    1. I believe this work should move forward in ECRIT
>    2. I'm agnostic to this work and don't care either way
>    3. I'm opposed to this architectural change to the ECRIT model and
>    believe this work should not be adopted.
>
>
>  A indication of #2 tells the chairs that you are aware of the work and
> truly don't have an opinion, it helps us in determining what percentage of
> the wg participants have read the draft.
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  Marc & Roger
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>
>