IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com> Tue, 23 December 2014 10:48 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 D76B21A036D for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 02:48:29 -0800 (PST)
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 S5pO1Insf0b3 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 02:48:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E46481A02F1 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 02:48:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id bj1so7682066pad.37 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 02:48:27 -0800 (PST)
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=eUURtEn4LXA0MLps4wn7uqHQMwQA/UttRfzeInagL10=; b=WgtCAIJykvDgjNPS1L/tPwBvWgaM0bqcXwL0jhmFsHpRRO2HeX4RtvWL6dQnH1eS0E rnb8ScclaPKdh2uuvhgw+nmGP62f2rgGkRL4ZaWiFOxCwHpmUklxH8IvIVyEuM2hg0QX +MpTB1F9YdptGHMjmHpSWVbvCWiTF4X3GTZkwuWrtxum8M6XNak4TNK7Rn4SMhghebMn jbR9zqaOChsxQaZLTvKpdBfjFHhBb505UFpT6ikkQqx5nnfD9TLdPjNClCdMsD1uaVU8 4bsNYGuVZDKoinCO6JafOuvRENcu5tfVFtjmgn9yb84Bfeti0Hn6GwY0q1xGJ7h/rcra wyWQ==
X-Received: by 10.70.94.104 with SMTP id db8mr42622341pdb.32.1419331707143; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 02:48:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.13] (124-149-121-203.dyn.iinet.net.au. [124.149.121.203]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e9sm19627200pdp.59.2014.12.23.02.48.24 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Dec 2014 02:48:26 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <p06240608d0bee6baee93@[172.20.0.45]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 21:48:22 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <626CEBB4-47D6-4F5A-9346-17143C40E92B@gmail.com>
References: <710AB81D-179D-49C2-AE97-BB6D416F2205@cisco.com> <p06240608d0bee6baee93@[172.20.0.45]>
To: Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/VGr6XniY2xHy6ZxYOshGUvpEBNM
Cc: ecrit@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc
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, 23 Dec 2014 10:48:30 -0000

Hi Randy,

That could work, but that implies that you know what services that the system supports.
I think that I would rather make an assumption that emergency and the subset thereof are all we support and leave an extension point for people to extend from if the need ever arises.


Cheers
James


> On 23 Dec 2014, at 8:36 pm, Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> 
> I have a technical question about the draft.  From my reading, it appears that the extension is to add an empty <requestRoutingInformation> element to a HELD request, and if the server supports it, it includes a <routingInformation> element with all possible values that could be returned.  Is this correct or am I missing something?  If it is correct, why is the <requestRoutingInformation> element empty rather than contain the desired service?  Wouldn't it be simpler to include the specific service of interest (e.g., 'sos'), as in the <service> element from LoST and then the server only needs to look that up and return only that?
> 
> 
> At 4:19 PM +0000 12/22/14, Marc Linsner (mlinsner) wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> There is consensus to move forward with this work.
>> 
>> The chairs will request to the milestone addition for this draft to be submitted to the IESG by September 2015, of course earlier completion is always a good thing.
>> 
>> James, please submit a version as an IETF draft and we will approve.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Marc & Roger
>> ECRIT co-chairs
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecrit mailing list
>> Ecrit@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> 
> 
> -- 
> Randall Gellens
> Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
> -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
> Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what value there may
> be in owning a piece thereof.                        --National Lampoon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email