Re: [Geopriv] IETF74 Consensus Calls

[<L.Liess at telekom.de>]

1. yes
2. yes
3 a. yes b. no

4. yes. We already use this kind of mechanism for EC in our SIP service.
We strongly support the work on a standard which enables a SIP-proxy to
acquire the location based on the IP-address.    

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:geopriv-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Barnes
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:31 AM
> 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
>