Re: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted, here's the changes

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Fri, 29 October 2010 00:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.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 27AE93A67A4 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 JXFk6VhLnQkk for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1947D3A67A3 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,255,1286150400"; d="scan'208";a="375555784"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Oct 2010 00:32:29 +0000
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8715.cisco.com [10.99.80.22]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9T0WS3p005579; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:32:29 GMT
Message-Id: <201010290032.o9T0WS3p005579@sj-core-5.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:32:27 -0500
To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>, "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>, "James M.Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F31EB374@SISPE7MB1.comms cope.com>
References: <201010270432.o9R4WLe8013111@sj-core-5.cisco.com> <625A3E65-E441-4340-A5E2-B847F8B964CF@bbn.com> <201010271838.o9RIcjgG008761@sj-core-5.cisco.com> <63EEFC46-26FC-4A69-B1A7-2CC79583B8B2@bbn.com> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F31EB374@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted, here's the changes
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: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:30:37 -0000

At 07:00 PM 10/28/2010, Thomson, Martin wrote:
>On 2010-10-28 at 23:18:48, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> > At least in my mind, multiple != 2.
>
>In terms of damage done, allowing more is just a matter of 
>degree.  The "you break it, you bought it" philosophy applies regardless.

I'll leave the warnings against more than one, but allow "many" in 
the next rev.

Everyone cool with that?

James


>--Martin