Subject: [Geopriv] RE: Geopriv Digest, Vol 35, Issue 30

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:24:46 -0400

Responses questions (Message 4: Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working
Group Hums) below:

Q1) in favour
Q2) in favour
Q3) in favour
Q4) impartial 
Q5) impartial
Q6) in favour
Q7) in favour
Q8) in favour

Hakem

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:34:15 -0400
From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums
To: GEOPRIV WG <[email-masked]>
Cc: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

All,

Hopefully everybody has recovered from the IETF 68 meeting, where a  
lot of resolutions were put forward.  As is the policy of the IETF,  
all work must be conducted on the mailing list.  This means that all  
the hums taken during the meeting must be ratified on this mailing  
list.  Because so many consensus calls were taken at IETF 68, we will  
attempt to cover these in two separate messages.  This is being done  
because so many of the latter decisions are predicated on earlier  
ones.  We'd appreciate responses to this first set consensus calls no  
later than Tuesday, 24 April.

For reference, you may consult the raw minutes sent to this list by  
Robert Sparks.  Additionally, you may consult the recorded audio  
here: http://limestone.uoregon.edu/ftp/pub/videolab/media/ietf68/ 
ietf68-ch1-thur-am.mp3 . The questions in this email are taken from  
the audio using the raw minutes as a guide.  Because none of the  
consensus call questions were written down when presented to the  
working group, they may be slightly reworded for better readability  
in the written form.  Each question will appear with its approximate  
time in the audio recording for your reference.

The first part of the meeting focused on the future direction of the  
working group, mostly with respect to LCPs and LbyR de-referencing  
protocols.  Some of these consensus calls were validations of past  
decisions of the working group or uncontroversial issues.  These  
verifications were requested by Cullen Jennings acting as AD to the  
group.

The first question put to the group was (around 23:00 ):
   Who is in favor of having an additional IETF specified location  
configuration protocol?  (It would be additional to DHCP and would  
not deprecate DHCP). [ Note that the raw minutes say "LCP" instead of  
"DHCP". ]

The second question put to the group was (around 34:00):
   Do we want to specify a protocol profile or protocol extensions or  
protocol usage or event package within the SIP context to allow a  
subscription by a target to its location?  This would apply to both  
direct and indirect methods of obtaining subscription.

The third question put to the group was (around 39:30):
   Who is in favor of proceeding with an indirect mechanism, where  
the URL is being obtained from somewhere else, for a target to  
acquire its own location?

The fourth question put to the group was (around 40:10):
   Who would like to see the working group pursue an approach for  
direct acquisition via a subscription mechanism, meaning that the  
subscription contain sufficient information based on lower-level  
network identifiers?

The fifth question put to the group was (around 44:50):
   Who is in favor of extending protocols like DHCP for the purpose  
of carrying a URL that would be used for indirect, subscription LCP?  
[ Note that the raw minutes mention the original question. However,  
the questioned was restated before it was put to the room. ]

The sixth question put to the group was (around 46:10):
   Who is in favor of pursuing work in GEOPRIV on a solution for  
indirect LCP subscription URIs through layer 7 mechanisms?

The seventh question put to the group was (around 47:40):
   Who is in favor of pursuing an HTTP-based LCP?

The eighth question put to the group was (around 56:20):
   Is the working group ready and interested in pursuing at least  
HTTP-for-retrieval and SIP-for-subscription dereferencing mechanism  
to dereference location by references?

Again, if you wish to respond to these questions, we'd appreciate  
responses from you no later than Tuesday, 24 April.

-andy, GEOPRIV co-chair

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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:32:24 -0400

Sorry .. resending

Hakem

-----Original Message-----
From: Habib, Hakem (A529713) 
Sent: April 23, 2007 2:25 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: Geopriv Digest, Vol 35, Issue 30

Q1) in favour
Q2) in favour
Q3) in favour
Q4) impartial 
Q5) impartial
Q6) in favour
Q7) in favour
Q8) in favour

Hakem

Message: 4

All,

-andy, GEOPRIV co-chair