Subject: [Geopriv] working group milestones

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:49:04 -0500

All,

It is once again time to update our milestones so that they more 
accurately reflect reality.  Here is a proposed set of new milestones 
based on the current work of the working group.  If you have any 
comments, please let them be heard.

Feb. 04 - Submit PIDF-LO basic geopriv object draft as a PS.
Mar. 04 - Submit Common Rules geopriv object draft as a PS.
Jun. 04 - Initial HTTP using protocol draft.
Jun. 04 - Initial SIP using protocol draft
Jul. 04 - Initial Using protocol guideline.
Nov. 04 - Submit HTTP using protocol draft as a PS.
Nov. 04 - Submit SIP using protocol draft as a PS.
Nov. 04 - Submit Using protocol guidelines draft as a BCP.
Nov. 04 - Conclude working group.

-andy

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

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:47:51 -0500

All,

It would appear that I was not as clear as could be about these
milestones.  Perhaps I was thinking people would do a diff against the
current ones.

Anyway, a couple of things should be pointed out.

1) The common rules draft will actually be a pair of drafts: one
defining an extensible framework and a second, more-geopriv specific
definition on using that framework.  So the item should probably read
"drafts" and not "draft".

2) You should note that these milestones omitt the HTTP/HTML geo-tag and
geo-header drafts.  Even though these are called out in our charter,
there has been no forward movement.  Is the working group still
interested in this?

3) The same goes for the API draft.

4) While we have passed the DHCP LCI draft on, no work has progressed on
the DHCP Civil draft.  Should we just drop it?  Note, that it does not
reside in our current set of milestones.

-andy

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:57:43 -0500

At 12:47 PM 1/22/2004, Andrew Newton wrote:
>... While we have passed the DHCP LCI draft on, no work has progressed on

I would prefer to se it refreshed and sent it to the IESG.

Now that the geographic location option has gotten through the gauntlet,
it seems this one should go smoothly. Is there any objection?
Henning?

John

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:59:35 -0600

comments in-line

>"drafts" and not "draft".

perhaps this should be indicated as separate items in the milestones 
section so others can understand that there are 2 individual docs being 
worked on?

>there has been no forward movement.  Is the working group still

If this is not being worked on further, should the "HTTP using protocol" 
milestone still be listed?

>reside in our current set of milestones.

cheers,
James

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

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:12:47 -0500

> section so others can understand that there are 2 individual docs being 

My personal preference is to make the milestone reflect the work item, 
even if that work item ends up being one, two, or three separate drafts 
for the purposes of clarity, readability, modularity, etc...  I'd rather 
not repeat this conversation 6 months from now.

>>> Nov. 04 - Submit HTTP using protocol draft as a PS.

The HTTP/HTML geo-tag/geo-header work is not the same as the HTTP using 
protocol work for Location Objects.  There was a desire to have this 
work conform more the LO work (expressed at the interim meeting in DC), 
but there has been no movement.

-andy