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

Let’s also qualify that “In Europe” is this specific ETSI work.  There is other work (EENA) that uses the IETF approach holistically.  It may be that the ETSI work succeeds and is deployed in some countries for some time, but I would not recommend betting against the EENA approach long term.

Brian

On Jul 29, 2014, at 5:13 PM, Marc Linsner (mlinsner) <mlinsner@cisco.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 at 4:58 PM
> To: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
> Cc: Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com>, "ecrit_ietf.org"
> <ecrit@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Discussion on draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc-04
> 
>> 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 doesn¹t meet the requirements we have outlined.
>> The routing returned in HELD will meet the requirements in Europe, can¹t
>> we just get on with producing a spec please?
> 
> 
> The problem is the requirements are for the most part fallacious.
> 
> When queried why the VSP can¹t have LbyV if it¹s covered by their EULA,
> the answer is, in that case they can have LbyV.
> 
> -Marc-
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Cheers
>> James
>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Right, it's a query no matter which entity does it, or which protocol
>>>> is used.
>>> Yeah.  That¹s why even though I have a preference for LoST-does-LbyR, I
>>> am not really against HELD-returns-route.
>>> 
>>> Brian
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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