Re: [Ecrit] Requesting IETF LC for phonebcp

<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