Re: [Geopriv] SIP Location Conveyance

Are we talking about draft-peterson-geopriv-retransmission-00.txt?

If so, I have no objection.  I agree with the conclusions and analysis
in that document.

If, on the other hand, we're talking about a new draft-ietf-geopriv-
document that I haven't yet seen, I might have to object.

Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert Sparks
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 April 2008 2:18 AM
> To: Ted Hardie
> Cc: GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] SIP Location Conveyance
> 
> I don't object to proceeding this way. If anyone here does, speak up
> now.
> 
> RjS
> 
> On Apr 29, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> 
> > At 8:16 AM -0700 4/29/08, Robert Sparks wrote:
> >> (Typing based on memory rather than looking at notes - if memory
has
> >> drifted from reality don't hesitate to correct me).
> >>
> >> Hadn't planned on it, but if you feel that's the most appropriate
> >> thing to do, let me know.
> >> I was expecting the draft to be ephemeral and its contents captured
> >> for the long run in other documents.
> >> Do you think it should be published on its own?
> >>
> >> RjS
> >
> > I think the key thing that Keith Drage wants is a strong sense
> > that this is GeoPriv's consensus and that he can count on it not
> > changing.
> > I think making it a geopriv working group document helps
> > bolster that sense; if we have to, we can then ask for informational
> > status and publish it.  As  you say, it may turn out that
> > some other form of consensus call will do, but that's the  usual
> > way something gets declared to be the consensus of a group.
> >
> > 				Ted
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:09 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >>
> >>> At 7:49 AM -0700 4/29/08, Robert Sparks wrote:
> >>>> We are waiting on a revised draft from Jon capturing those
> >>>> conversations (who I will re-ping).
> >>>> We will make a GEOPRIV consensus call on that draft and pass the
> >>>> result to SIP.
> >>>>
> >>>> RjS
> >>>
> >>> Do you want the revised draft to be submitted as draft-geopriv- ?
> >>>
> >>>                              Ted
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 29, 2008, at 9:39 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I might be wrong but my previous query stopped at the point
> >>>>> where we
> >>>>> spoke about the next steps.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, who is going to write a summary of the discussion we had at
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> last
> >>>>> IETF meeting?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Geopriv mailing list
> >>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Geopriv mailing list
> >>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv