IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] location-conveyance-03 just submitted

"Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> Mon, 26 July 2010 07:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rbarnes@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476643A69E1 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ks5mHDVhi32q for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC143A687D for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.89.252.241] (port=49747 helo=dhcp-22e1.meeting.ietf.org) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1OdIbg-0005fd-Mw; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 04:00:17 -0400
Message-Id: <B3C15845-3C2F-482F-A527-74D5FCC7101B@bbn.com>
From: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
To: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
In-Reply-To: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA01BE6F59C4@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:00:14 +0200
References: <201007122355.o6CNt6us024310@sj-core-3.cisco.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAECBA4D59@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <201007251333.o6PDXUS7019180@rtp-core-1.cisco.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA01BE6F59C4@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] location-conveyance-03 just submitted
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:59:57 -0000

In addition, the proper reference is RFC 5808, which specifies  
requirements for location dereference mechanisms.



On Jul 25, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Elwell, John wrote:

>>> Unrelated to the above, concerning the text:
>>> "Other URI schemas used in the location URI MUST be reviewed against
>>>   the RFC 3693 [RFC3693] criteria for a Using Protocol"
>>> Who must review? The protocol implementer? How is this testable?
>>
>> The Geopriv "Using Protocol" is from the original requirements doc
>> from SIPPING, which is now the appendix here. It comes from RFC 3693,
>> which Geopriv is going to revise eventually with their Geopriv Arch
>> ID, that removes the use of this term.  Geopriv Arch is only an
>> update to 3693, and not a replacement, meaning 3693 will remain
>> actively appropriate, so I'm kinda caught with which to align with.
> [JRE] Notwithstanding the question of whether we make use of the  
> term "Using Protocol" or some other term, this doesn't address my  
> concern. The present text uses the passive voice, and therefore  
> doesn't make it clear who must review.
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email