Subject: [Geopriv] The truth about committees...

From: "Moore, Lyn E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:28:55 +1000

Hello Everyone
 
I am enjoying the blame game that some of you are indulging yourself in.
 
Two camps (and I will use company names because it has become obvious
that this is what is happening) - 
1. Cisco - I want to have location in the home router - presumably
because I know how this would work and then I can sell more routers.
2. Andrew Corp - I want to have location in the network - presumably
because I know how this would work and then I can sell more boxes.
 
Oh dear folks.  After all this time it seems to have come down to this.
I am unfortunately I work for a telco waiting for a deployable answer.
I am coming to the conclusion that the IETF won't be supplying it. 
 
Regards
 
Lyn Moore
Telstra Corp.

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

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:36:11 -0400

Lyn

Don't despair.

The IETF works on "rough consensus".  We got rough consensus in the Prague
meeting, and I expect we'll get it on the list.  We let the flame wars run
for a while and then determine if we have consensus.  I predict we'll be
able to declare rough consensus on this.

Brian

  _____  

From: Moore, Lyn E [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:29 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Geopriv] The truth about committees...

Hello Everyone

Two camps (and I will use company names because it has become obvious that
this is what is happening) - 

1. Cisco - I want to have location in the home router - presumably because I
know how this would work and then I can sell more routers.

2. Andrew Corp - I want to have location in the network - presumably because
I know how this would work and then I can sell more boxes.

I am unfortunately I work for a telco waiting for a deployable answer.  I am
coming to the conclusion that the IETF won't be supplying it. 

Regards

Lyn Moore

Telstra Corp.

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:01:39 -0400

I was not there, but what I read (and heard) was not consensus, but  
attempts to decide on close votes, even unauthenticated "votes" on  
the chat room.  I hope we do not distort the meaning of "consensus"  
as badly as we have "requirements".

John

On Apr 19, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> The IETF works on “rough consensus”.  We got rough consensus in the  
> Prague meeting, and I expect we’ll get it on the list.  We let the  
> flame wars run for a while and then determine if we have  
> consensus.  I predict we’ll be able to declare rough consensus on  
> this.
>
>

---

From: "Moore, Lyn E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:26:35 +1000

Not helpful folks  

-----Original Message-----
From: John Schnizlein [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 9:02 AM
To: Brian Rosen
Cc: Moore, Lyn E; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] The truth about committees...

I was not there, but what I read (and heard) was not consensus, but
attempts to decide on close votes, even unauthenticated "votes" on the
chat room.  I hope we do not distort the meaning of "consensus"  
as badly as we have "requirements".

John

On Apr 19, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> The IETF works on "rough consensus".  We got rough consensus in the 
> Prague meeting, and I expect we'll get it on the list.  We let the 
> flame wars run for a while and then determine if we have consensus.  I

> predict we'll be able to declare rough consensus on this.
>
>