IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com> Tue, 29 July 2014 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96E11A011F for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mvvWlgkt_o7O for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3287E1A016A for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id lf10so245728pab.30 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=559yc/SM+6lCyA1t70YN2EhBppIZ1DngZiZwLgRtnPc=; b=hK9NoDj3LMXyexya30DXx1qUnQ5lqZiyvM9tQcwC4PoOByrLufQHjPKl7XQWu+XlTa PlOCyuR+vWJx8t7Zqax5HfWwWTFTmZbZ5KjO7uWnKCCfYcB9vcMalN/PqXGk7HLeuhQp KUiJ5gJXyrRvvCLB4UQRbjYBVo56ikU168MEpQRcOpIFUTAMlawMIfFaVLJ/5CJumAlp h2tpBpor+gkQjUJwfEvGwhqvrvApssr4Rg3XCvcxZDBphkL0ITjRP4lUNg9vr5OAYdla jjjGtWTw+YHUzwP4xdz87OzxIY6HMvW/4a2HiOSgPlolBXHSylD8Jwqm30EGr3fjGNp8 4B3w==
X-Received: by 10.66.253.170 with SMTP id ab10mr4548488pad.53.1406667510860; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (124-168-62-139.dyn.iinet.net.au. [124.168.62.139]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fe8sm124551pdb.16.2014.07.29.13.58.28 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1C1D0F18-2C06-4152-A686-BE61F9CBB425@neustar.biz>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 06:58:26 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DAF7D4AB-CF24-4326-B1E8-9DF69675F54D@gmail.com>
References: <05074C92-4D02-48A6-83CC-C85CCB6ACADA@gmail.com> <96EF8E43-7039-4ADC-AB5B-1289EDD6F32C@neustar.biz> <p06240601cffc8c1c66df@[99.111.97.136]> <1C1D0F18-2C06-4152-A686-BE61F9CBB425@neustar.biz>
To: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/SiSHaYLu7xEm3_WYckJi7yoxkJI
Cc: Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com>, "ecrit_ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Discussion on draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc-04
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:58:32 -0000

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 doesn’t meet the requirements we have outlined.
The routing returned in HELD will meet the requirements in Europe, can’t we just get on with producing a spec please?

Cheers
James


>> 
>> 
>> Right, it's a query no matter which entity does it, or which protocol is used.
> Yeah.  That’s why even though I have a preference for LoST-does-LbyR, I am not really against HELD-returns-route.  
> 
> Brian
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email