IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ecrit] PLEASE RESPOND: Should the WG adopt draft-rosen-ecrit-emergency-registries-01?

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Wed, 31 August 2022 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A46C153387 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18j0c7Hg0jpQ for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4463C152597 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [99.111.97.177] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:51:47 -0700
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
To: James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>, ECRIT <ecrit@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:51:47 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5913)
Message-ID: <28C7A7F9-99C4-4BD5-AE4B-17EE3676B7AA@randy.pensive.org>
In-Reply-To: <9F5E19E4-6F10-4001-A327-1D6E41DD9C4C@gmail.com>
References: <19072608-033F-495E-A711-1CDC6568586F@randy.pensive.org> <1EA3E530-CC3F-4E16-8EAC-FDC0DD0FFD80@gmail.com> <8FA8FDF8-F56D-40F4-97A3-123282BCF8AF@brianrosen.net> <9F5E19E4-6F10-4001-A327-1D6E41DD9C4C@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/aMxwgTUSujmre3FNy5egGfzdq1o>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PLEASE RESPOND: Should the WG adopt draft-rosen-ecrit-emergency-registries-01?
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 23:51:53 -0000

On 30 Aug 2022, at 11:58, James Winterbottom wrote:

> I don’t think that RFC 8373 does what I need as it focuses on 
> language in the SDP which isn’t going to suit my need as I won’t 
> have SDP at that point and may not at all in some cases.
>
> These tags have use way beyond SIP and protocol methods, which is why 
> I was asking.

Hi James,

When I read your first message I thought you were asking for registry 
entries for 
"urn:service:emergency:responder.translation.language.spoken" or 
something like that, i.e., registry entries enabling a LoST query to 
find translation services available in a location. Now, I think you're 
asking for something else. While, as Brian says, this draft probably 
isn't the place for what you want, I am curious as to what it is.

--Randall

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email