IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<R.Jesske@telekom.de> Thu, 31 July 2014 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <R.Jesske@telekom.de>
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 EB5701B278C for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 05:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 UgcndM40_owf for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 05:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail13.telekom.de (tcmail13.telekom.de [80.149.113.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B4C31A0AB4 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 05:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s4de8nsazdfe010.bmbg.telekom.de ([10.175.246.202]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2014 14:45:32 +0200
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,772,1400018400"; d="scan'208,217";a="507375248"
Received: from he111629.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.21]) by q4de8nsa015.bmbg.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 31 Jul 2014 14:45:32 +0200
Received: from HE113667.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([fe80::c943:1394:e86e:fce3]) by HE111629.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:45:32 +0200
From: R.Jesske@telekom.de
To: mlinsner@cisco.com, ecrit@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:45:31 +0200
Thread-Topic: draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc-04
Thread-Index: AQHPqmcDQBOWz8idXUOAditSmLV3Jpu6JWWw
Message-ID: <058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E2819CD43F@HE113667.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <CFFBC6E2.5D512%mlinsner@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CFFBC6E2.5D512%mlinsner@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E2819CD43FHE113667eme_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/e9kY9TTKEpZ0FuGUMJGBYGcr79w
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] 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: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:45:41 -0000

Hi,
I support #1

Best Regards

Roland

Von: Ecrit [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Marc Linsner (mlinsner)
Gesendet: Montag, 28. Juli 2014 15:23
An: ecrit@ietf.org
Betreff: [Ecrit] draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc-04

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email