Re: [Sip] a question about IETF draft location conveyance 09

On Nov 21, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> At 2:28 PM -0600 11/21/07, James M. Polk wrote:
>>
>> The "recipient=" within the Geolocation header is a SIP parameter,  
>> in a SIP document.  Everything discussed in Geopriv regarding this  
>> document needs to be approved in SIP too.  The SIP WG hasn't heard  
>> this part of the discussion because most members of SIP aren't  
>> subscribed to the Geopriv list.
>
> That SIP parameter in a SIP document relates to a PIDF-LO object  
> carried by
> SIP; in that context, SIP is a using protocol of the GEOPRIV  
> framework.  SIP
> folks should certainly understand the work they're reusing, or the  
> implementations
> won't do the right thing.  But re-starting the conversation in SIP  
> without
> reference to the discussions that have already occurred in GeoPRIV  
> is a
> recipe for conflict at IETF Last Call.  We might as well start  
> getting people
> on the same page now.  From my  perspective, the right way to do  
> that is
> to start the discussion from where it last left off, even if that  
> wasn't in
> the same group.  That tells people where the consensus of that  
> group was
> and informs the rest of the discussion.

Supposedly, the discussion in GEOPRIV was a joint SIP/GEOPRIV effort.

A brief recap of the conclusion in GEOPRIV might be reasonable, but  
I'd much rather not revisit the thousands of emails on the topic in  
GEOPRIV. If we notice now that it is broken in some horrible way we  
didn't, before, that might change the situation, but we shouldn't  
rehash the entire design rationale.

--
Dean 

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip