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

Confirmation that SDOs would use the proposed work (and that they would prefer it to alternatives) would be helpful. And that would apply beyond ETSI if there are other SDOs in the same boat. 

> On Jul 29, 2014, at 7:05 PM, "James Winterbottom" <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The only thing we have the ES 203 178 which is in draft outlining the ESTI M/493 functional architecture.
> The stage-3 work isn’t generally open, but this method is currently list front runner.
> 
> Would you like me to see if I can get ETSI to send an LS?
> This may take a couple of weeks because I think that many people from the WG are currently in leave.
> 
> Cheers
> James
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30 Jul 2014, at 12:01 pm, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I would also favor #1, based on my understanding of current deployment plans.
>> 
>> BTW, do we have a liaisons from SDOs saying they would use this? If not, can the ECRIT WG send liaisons asking if it would be used? 
>> 
>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 1:30 PM, "James Winterbottom" <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I am going for #1.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 28 Jul 2014, at 11:22 pm, Marc Linsner (mlinsner) <mlinsner@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 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:
>>>> I believe this work should move forward in ECRIT
>>>> I’m agnostic to this work and don’t care either way
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> <Mail Attachment.txt>
> 