Subject: [Geopriv] The next HELD work item

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 01:55:06 -0500

Hi All,

A few weeks ago a number of people raised concerns about milestones that
were being suggested against the new geopriv charter, and there were
some requests for some others to be included.

Since then I have had a number of discussions with various people to try
and ascertain what the best way forward is.

In order to get a more of less complete solution we have 4 outstanding
documents that we need, in no particular order these are:

Measurements
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-geopriv-held-measurements-04)

Residential Gateway LIS discovery
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery-0
1)

HELD dereference
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-deref-protocol-03
)

HELD Identity extensions
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-ext
ensions-09)

After some discussion with Cullen his preference is very strongly to
progress these documents one at a time, when one is done then the next
can come in. The rationale for this is so that we can concentrate on
getting one document done at a time rather than dilute the attention of
the group across a range of documents all at once. This is okay
providing we can move the documents at something faster than the current
pace has been.

The upshot is that we had to pick one, and after my discussion with some
of the interested parties we would like to propose that we work on the
Measurements draft and that we use
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-geopriv-held-measurements-04 as
a starting point.

Cheers
James

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

---

From: "Dawson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 02:02:01 -0500

> The rationale for this is so that we can concentrate on getting one
> document done at a time rather than dilute the attention of the group
> across a range of documents all at once.

That's OK - as long as the rationale is valid. Do we know it is?
Otherwise we've got years ahead of us...

Cheers,
Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Winterbottom, James
Sent: Friday, 3 July 2009 4:55 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Geopriv] The next HELD work item

Hi All,

Measurements

HELD dereference

HELD Identity extensions

Cheers
James

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
[mf2]

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:15:20 +0100

> providing we can move the documents at something faster than the current

Will we be able to at least clear the hurdle of getting all four adopted 
as WG items straight away?

Ray

-- 
Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET
Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet
e: [email-masked], t: +44 1865 332211

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:23:37 -0400

I would prefer the order be
1) deref
2) Identity
3) LIS discovery
4) measurement

Specifically, I know of no work pending on measurements.  It's only
marginally useful: where the device has measurement information but does not
do the calculation AND there is no other protocol that is network specific.
I agree that the case of the device providing measurements is common,
specifically in wireless networks, but the reality is that they have a
solution, and the HELD solution isn't likely to be adopted in favor of their
existing solution. 

On the other hand, we need deref right away, because we expect LbyR to be
common.  I would like to see Identity right after that to provide OBO
capability, needed by U.K. and Canadian emergency call, as well as NENA i3
(the latter uses it for legacy wireline phone number to location mapping).

LIS discovery seems more important that measurements to me also.  I could be
convinced to move it ahead of Identity.

Brian

> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 2:55 AM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:41:29 -0400

I support this request. Let's get those on the WG items list first.

Thanks,

Guy

________________________________
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de [email-masked]
Envoyé : 3 juillet 2009 03:15
À : Winterbottom, James
Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [Geopriv] The next HELD work item

> providing we can move the documents at something faster than the current

Will we be able to at least clear the hurdle of getting all four adopted as WG items straight away?

Ray

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:12:48 -0700

+1

From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:41:29 -0400
CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] The next HELD work item

I support this request.
Let’s get those on the WG items list first.

Thanks,

Guy

De :
[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de [email-masked]

Envoyé : 3 juillet
2009 03:15

À : Winterbottom,
James

Cc : [email-masked];
[email-masked]

Objet : Re: [Geopriv] The
next HELD work item

> pace has been.

Will we be
able to at least clear the hurdle of getting all four adopted as WG items
straight away? 

Ray

--

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:11:43 -0500

At 11:41 AM 7/3/2009, [email-masked] wrote:
>Content-Language: fr-FR
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> 
>boundary="_000_0FEAC1C09868B34A982F4FB40254B37C275090CE4BMBX02bellcorp_"
>
>I support this request. Let’s get those on the WG items list first.

making all 4 WG items first confuses the 
situation it appears Cullen seems to want to 
avoid, so this doesn't make sense to me.

>
>Thanks,
>
>Guy
>
>
>----------
>De : [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de [email-masked]
>Will we be able to at least clear the hurdle of 
>getting all four adopted as WG items straight away?
>
>Ray
>
>--

---

From: "Dawson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 19:38:10 -0500

This is my concern with the rationale.

The "argumentation factor" of this working group is a fractal constant.
The value of argument across any period of time will be the same;
regardless of the number of items under discussion.

As we see - now there's an argument about the order in which things
should be argued...

Cheers,
Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Brian Rosen
Sent: Friday, 3 July 2009 10:24 PM
To: Winterbottom, James; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] The next HELD work item

Specifically, I know of no work pending on measurements.  It's only
marginally useful: where the device has measurement information but does
not
do the calculation AND there is no other protocol that is network
specific.
I agree that the case of the device providing measurements is common,
specifically in wireless networks, but the reality is that they have a
solution, and the HELD solution isn't likely to be adopted in favor of
their
existing solution. 

On the other hand, we need deref right away, because we expect LbyR to
be
common.  I would like to see Identity right after that to provide OBO
capability, needed by U.K. and Canadian emergency call, as well as NENA
i3
(the latter uses it for legacy wireline phone number to location
mapping).

LIS discovery seems more important that measurements to me also.  I
could be
convinced to move it ahead of Identity.

Brian

> Residential Gateway LIS discovery
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery-
> 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------
> [mf2]
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:14:05 +0100

> avoid, so this doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, it may (slightly) confuse it.

However as other SDOs are already developing specifications that depend on 
them it would be highly preferable that they are at least recognised IETF 
WG drafts rather than individual drafts.

Ray

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 17:26:52 -0400 (EDT)

+1

Carl

---

From: "Dawson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 19:30:06 -0500

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, 6 July 2009 7:27 AM
To: Bernard Aboba
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Winterbottom, James; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] The next HELD work item

+1

Carl
> Let's get those on the WG items list first.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Guy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> De :