Subject: RE: [Geopriv] identify "considerable constituency" or let HELD

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:13:28 -0600

I agree. We do need closure. Those of us who comprise the "considerable
constituency" really need to know if the IETF is going to work with us
on creating an L7 solution (xml/soap/http -- HELD is currently the
proposal of choice) for location acquisition, or if we need to take it
to a different standards body. This delay in making a decision is not at
all helpful.

Naturally, we would prefer to have the IETF work with us. 
Barbara

Barbara Stark
BellSouth

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of John Schnizlein
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:06 AM
To: Andrew Newton
Cc: GEOPRIV WG
Subject: [Geopriv] identify "considerable constituency" or let HELD go

The chairs have yet to call "for a hum" regarding consensus, or even 
for identification of the "considerable constituency" that was claimed 
during IETF 64 as the reason not to evaluate the possibility of, 
consensus on letting HELD go away from consideration to become a WG 
effort.

When will this old business be resolved?

John

On Dec 12, 2005, at 11:43 AM, Andrew Newton wrote:
Re: [Geopriv] draft minutes from IETF 64
>
> On Dec 9, 2005, at 5:12 PM, John Schnizlein wrote:
>>
> ...
>>         2.4.9 Brian Rosen asked the chairs if they would consider a 
>> hum
>>           with regard to accepting HELD and expressed concern that
the
>>           working group was spending too much time discussing this
>> item
>>           considering it was not a working group document.  James
>>           Winterbottom objected to this and asked for any hum to be
>>           conducted on the mailing list.  The chairs noted that all
>>           IETF consensus decisions had to be sent to the mailing
list.
>>           The chairs also noted that while many issues exist with
HELD
>>           that there was a considerable constituency interested in
the
>>           work and therefore the working group would continue
>>           evalutaing the proposal until all aspects were well
>>           understood.
>>
>> I heard Brian's request a little differently - that we get a sense of

>> the room if we wanted to pursue this effort after three versions of 
>> the proposal with similar concerns remaining.
>
> This is a more specific statement.  If Brian doesn't object, I see no 
> reason why the minutes should not be modified to reflect this more 
> specific statement.
>
>>   While WG consensus should be established on its mailing list, 
>> refusal to take a sense of the room when requested is unusual in the 
>> IETF.
>
> That's your opinion.  I don't see how it relates to the minutes of the

> meeting.
>
>>   The chairs should request identification of the "considerable 
>> constituency" on the mailing list as soon as possible.
>
> This is not a bad idea.  But I also don't see how it relates to the 
> minutes of the meeting.

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

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 163

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

---

From: "McCalmont, Patti" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:16:40 -0600

I agree with Barbara's comments. We need closure and there is a need for
HELD. Not all constituents that support this HELD proposal are part of
the GEOPRIV list server. What is the real objection to supporting a L7
solution? IETF supports defining protocols, this is a protocol that is
backed by several constituents (some who are available to hum and some
who aren't).

Patti McCalmont
Intrado

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Stark, Barbara
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 11:13 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] identify "considerable constituency" or let HELD

Barbara Stark
BellSouth

-----Original Message-----

John

the
list.
HELD
the

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from all computers. 163