Subject: [Geopriv] milestones

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:51:28 -0500

All,

At IETF 61, I presented a list of milestones and received little 
feedback on them except the last one.  I'd like to present a modified 
list with dates that are probable more realistic and a reworded last 
milestone:

    Submit draft-ietf-geopriv-policy as proposed standard in Feb., 2005
    Submit draft-ietf-geopriv-radius as proposed standard in Mar., 2005
    Confer with SIP WG on SIP using protocol draft as proposed standard 
in Feb., 2005
    Submit re-charter for GEOPRIV-MAINT in Mar., 2005

Note that the last item is about a re-charter to focus the group on 
maintenance instead of closing the working group.  Is this more 
palatable?

Please provide feedback by Monday, December 20.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:16:47 -0600

At 10:51 AM 12/13/2004 -0500, Andrew Newton wrote:
>All,
>
>At IETF 61, I presented a list of milestones and received little feedback 
>on them except the last one.  I'd like to present a modified list with 
>dates that are probable more realistic and a reworded last milestone:
>

are we really this far out on this ID (above)?

>    Confer with SIP WG on SIP using protocol draft as proposed standard in 
> Feb., 2005
>maintenance instead of closing the working group.  Is this more palatable?

If there is more work to do (literally in front of us - meaning a 
requirements ID), then the re-charter should not be to "maintenance mode". 
If there is not more work to do, then I agree with you plan for now.

>Please provide feedback by Monday, December 20.

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 02:21:52 -0500

> are we really this far out on this ID (above)?

We are not penalized for having it done sooner.  I'm just being more 
realistic.

On Dec 14, 2004, at 1:16 AM, James M. Polk wrote:

> requirements ID), then the re-charter should not be to "maintenance 
> mode". If there is not more work to do, then I agree with you plan for 
> now.

I guess you and I see things differently.  The way I see it:
   1) if there is no work to be done, close the working group.
   2) if the working group wants to go back and fix/extend PDIF-LO, 
etc..., that's maintenance.

As implementations of PIDF-LO & DHCP-LI hit the street, it is only 
natural that we'll find things we want fixed and stumble upon use cases 
previously unimagined requiring extension.  I guess another name for 
this is "bis-mode".

If this doesn't work for you, I'm open for suggestions.

-andy

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:27:22 -0600

At 02:21 AM 12/14/2004 -0500, Andrew Newton wrote:
>>mode". If there is not more work to do, then I agree with you plan for now.
>
>I guess you and I see things differently.

ok

>The way I see it:

I agree with this statement

> etc..., that's maintenance.

I guess I wouldn't use the term/meaning "maintenance" wrt extending 
PIDF-LO. But this difference is more a matter of the failings of email 
communication than anything else I should think.

I'd like to see a document stating why the WG should go on (i.e. a well 
thought out reqs ID), and not just a placeholder for something *promised* 
sometime in the future (something half-baked but turned in).

>As implementations of PIDF-LO & DHCP-LI hit the street, it is only natural 
>that we'll find things we want fixed and stumble upon use cases previously 
>unimagined requiring extension.  I guess another name for this is "bis-mode".

bis-mode is good

perhaps we should think about a geopriv-implementors list for those only 
dealing with interoperability and implementations, and leave the main list 
for extending original geopriv work (given a good reqs ID).

>If this doesn't work for you, I'm open for suggestions.

I think we're closer to agreement than you and I thought we originally were.

comments?

cheers,
James

                                *******************

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:29:06 -0500

On Dec 16, 2004, at 7:27 AM, James M. Polk wrote:

> I'd like to see a document stating why the WG should go on (i.e. a 
> well thought out reqs ID), and not just a placeholder for something 
> *promised* sometime in the future (something half-baked but turned 
> in).

What about:

    Submit draft-ietf-geopriv-policy as proposed standard in Feb., 2005
    Submit draft-ietf-geopriv-radius as proposed standard in Mar., 2005
    Confer with SIP WG on SIP using protocol draft as proposed standard 
in Feb., 2005
    Initial bis-requirements document in Feb., 2005
    Close or re-charter for GEOPRIV-MAINT in Mar., 2005

To accept this, I would like a show of hands for volunteers willing to 
write the document.

>> natural that we'll find things we want fixed and stumble upon use 
>> cases previously unimagined requiring extension.  I guess another 
>> name for this is "bis-mode".
>
> bis-mode is good
>
> perhaps we should think about a geopriv-implementors list for those 
> only dealing with interoperability and implementations, and leave the 
> main list for extending original geopriv work (given a good reqs ID).

Let's consider this if the list traffic gets too high.  For now it is 
pretty light.  Of course, after MARID my concept of high-volume may not 
be in-line with everybody else. :)

-andy

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:42:41 -0600

Which document are you referring to as "the document" at the end of what 
you wrote below?

I assume (which always gets me in trouble) you are referring to the 
bis-reqs ID...

cheers,
James

                                *******************

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:36:40 -0500

On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:42 AM, James M. Polk wrote:

> Which document are you referring to as "the document" at the end of 
> what you wrote below?
>

Yes.

-andy

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:48:35 -0500

Perhaps I was not explicit about this.

Who is willing to author a bis requirements document for GEOPRIV?  You 
can send me email privately or to the list if you are willing to accept 
this task.

If nobody is willing to write such a document, I see no reason to 
expect a recharter of this working group, and therefore no reason to 
expect this working group to continue past its current work items.

I realize that charter and milestone discussions are tedious and 
boring, but it is expected of us.

-andy

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:06:38 -0800

Andy, all,

My thought about a geoprivmaint working group (the proposed
final new milestone) is that
one would not necessarily do a bis requirements document
for the location object.

The IESG has been thinking of 'maint' working groups as
having charters like:

   review/make minor fixes to PSs, recycle
    
   bring PSs -> DS with or without above cleanup

   consider extensions of their major protocols
   as they come up - we'd be there for new classes of
   using protocols, for example

Mostly be on hiatus, have few meetings

Allison

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:04:22 -0500

The folks at NENA will put out a requirements document for updates.
We'll bring it in as an I-D.

I will volunteer for doing the authoring of an IETF requirements document if
we need one.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Allison Mankin
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 11:07 AM
> To: Andrew Newton
> Cc: GEOPRIV WG
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Looking for authors for the bis requirements
> document
> 
> Andy, all,
>