[Geopriv] Moving forward with l7-lcp

All -

Those of you that attended the IETF68 Geopriv meeting went through a  
fairly
intense and unusual process to make forward progress on the l7-lcp  
front.
Whether or not you attended, please go re-read the minutes covering  
that part
of the meeting.

To summarize:

   - The group expressed an overwhelming desire to have exactly one  
http-based l7-lcp.
   - The group confirmed strongly that they felt informed enough to  
choose a
     starting point from the contending proposals.
   - A hum poll showed there was not a dominant preference between  
the options,
     so the group agreed to make forward progress by accepting a  
plurality
     opinion. (Ted Hardie helped lead the group through this  
difficult territory).
   - The opinions in the room were perfectly split between using RELO  
as the
     starting point for moving forward and using HELD. Cullen agreed  
to change
     his position to break the tie, but the gesture was eclipsed as  
fairly
     strong support for starting with HELD appeared from those  
participating
     via jabber.

The takeaway was agreement in the room to work this plurality decision
and make forward progress with a document based on HELD.

Clearly, this process was extreme. It appears to have been effective  
- the group
achieved something very hard to do.  It's important that we  
predominantly agree to
work with this decision as we go forward. If you have strong concerns  
about how we got
here, please bring them to the list or to me. Based on the agreement  
that I see, here's
a plan for going forward.

We'll create a new working group document based on
draft-winterbottom-http-location-delivery-05 to provide an HTTP-based  
l7-lcp
protocol that as simply as possible meets the requirements being  
refined in
draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps.

Mary Barnes has agreed to be the editor of this draft. Please join me  
in thanking
her for taking on this task and helping her get started.

I urge everyone to embrace this opportunity to make forward progress  
on this topic.
If you weren't able to participate directly in the meeting, please  
review the progress
we've made and let us know if you're also willing to make progress  
with this plan.

RjS

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv