Re: [Geopriv] IETF74 Consensus Calls

["Brian Rosen" <br at brianrosen.net>]

I don't understand the origin of 3b.  The room clearly signaled that they
wished to fix what they perceived to be broken with 3825, but they seemed to
want to use the URI to a PIDF as the solution to anything more complex than
could be expressed with (fixed) 3825 and 4776.

I would say no to 3b.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Richard Barnes
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:31 PM
To: 'GEOPRIV'
Subject: [Geopriv] IETF74 Consensus Calls

This email is a call to confirm consensus on three questions raised at 
the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 74, and to call for consensus on one 
additional question.  Please reply no later than Thursday, 2 April 2009.


Confirmations:

1. Should GEOPRIV add a milestone for updates and clarifications to RFC 
3693, based on draft-barnes-geopriv-lo-sec?

2. Should GEOPRIV add a milestone for a URI that describes geodetic 
location information, based on draft-mayrhofer-geopriv-geo-uri.

3.a. Should GEOPRIV add a milestone for backward-compatible fixes to the 
RFC 3825 geodetic location format?

3.b Should GEOPRIV add a milestone for a new, non-backward-compatible 
DHCP format for geodetic location information?


New Question:

4. At IETF 71, there was GEOPRIV consensus to seek a milestone to 
address the problems discussed in 
draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions.  Should GEOPRIV 
base that milestone on that document?
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv