Re: [Geopriv] Confused about draft-polk-geopriv-pidf-lo-4-agps-00.txt

["James M. Polk" <jmpolk at cisco.com>]

At 06:52 PM 7/17/2008, Richard Barnes wrote:
> James,
>
> With respect to the presence event package: The minutes from IETF 69 
> reflect agreement that presence should be the only event package 
> used for dereference of SIP location URIs:
> "
> * When asked if geopriv should provide constraints about event 
> packages used for location, the room expressed
>   - dereferencing may be done with presence
>   - dereferencing may be done with other event packages
>   - geopriv's recommendations focus on using presence
> "
>
> This agreement does not mean that presence is the only event package 
> that will ever be used in a GEOPRIV specification.

if you have a copy of my presentation, and look at the notes, you'll 
see that the notes do *not* quite capture what the room said about 
the vote that was taken.

The choice was specifically
- to have presence do it
- let another event package do it
- let both do it

The room chose presence will be the one to do it, and not let the 
"location" event package be used to subscribe for location 
information (in a PIDF-LO).

I have the original preso; do you want to see it?


> In particular, my comment in our discussion noted that your 
> proposals for using SIP for A-GPS and triangulation are distinct 
> from the dereference usage reflected in the consensus 
> above.  Therefore, it may be appropriate to use a diferent event package.

I disagree. You have since moved to that position, but it isn't 
supported by any WG consensus, and should be said that way.


> Just wanted to clarify that particular side point,
> --Richard
>
>
> James M. Polk wrote:
> > At 02:03 PM 7/17/2008, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> > > have you been missing years of discussions around L7 LCPs? Henning even
> > > had a proposal to use SIP, see
> > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-geopriv-locationref-00
> > >
> > > Based on the decisions in Prague the group decided to go for HELD and
> > > there was no need seen to create yet another LCP. Adding yet another
> > > protocol does not make deployment a lot simpler...
> > hmmm, let's see...
> > A decision in Prague means I should know better than to bring it up 
> > now.  That's interesting in a group that repeatedly DOESN'T follow 
> > it's own consensus (if it doesn't suit them or a particular author).
> > Case in point (and just one example of this) is from IETF 69 
> > (that's less than 1 year ago), the WG decided "Presence" was the 
> > only event package to be used for location.
> > That didn't James Winterbottom and Martin Thomson from writing a 
> > new SIP event package for THIS IETF proposing a new event package 
> > for location, nor did it stop the GEOPRV Secretary (Richard Barnes) 
> > from strongly suggesting and backing the idea of this new event 
> > package to another SDO last week.
> > Seriously, if the Geopriv Secretary cannot follow his own WG's 
> > consensuses, how can we blame authors from following consensuses of 
> > the WG (i.e., James W and Martin).
> > Or did everyone NOT pay attention to that consensus when it was 
> > taken but me (the author of the Conveyance document that is 
> > stipulating the event package to be used)?
> > BTW -- regarding SIP and doing LCP-like things -- there is a new 
> > requirement from another SDO (which I mention by name in the agps 
> > and triangulation IDs) for persistent connections which look an 
> > awful lot like a subscription-based dialog -- something HTTP cannot 
> > do, nor can DHCP.  These IDs are suggesting we revisit the SIP as 
> > an LCP *because* of this new requirement, and that's the only 
> > reason these docs were written.
> > I guess the INTRO needs to be clearer in both IDs as to this 
> > requirement. I'll fix that in the next rev of both.
> >
> > > Ciao
> > > Hannes
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > Geopriv at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

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