Re: [Geopriv] Confused about draft-polk-geopriv-pidf-lo-4-agps-00.txt

["James M. Polk" <jmpolk at cisco.com>]

At 02:03 PM 7/17/2008, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> have you been missing years of discussions around L7 LCPs? Henning even
> had a proposal to use SIP, see
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-geopriv-locationref-00
>
> Based on the decisions in Prague the group decided to go for HELD and
> there was no need seen to create yet another LCP. Adding yet another
> protocol does not make deployment a lot simpler...

hmmm, let's see...

A decision in Prague means I should know better than to bring it up 
now.  That's interesting in a group that repeatedly DOESN'T follow 
it's own consensus (if it doesn't suit them or a particular author).

Case in point (and just one example of this) is from IETF 69 (that's 
less than 1 year ago), the WG decided "Presence" was the only event 
package to be used for location.

That didn't James Winterbottom and Martin Thomson from writing a new 
SIP event package for THIS IETF proposing a new event package for 
location, nor did it stop the GEOPRV Secretary (Richard Barnes) from 
strongly suggesting and backing the idea of this new event package to 
another SDO last week.

Seriously, if the Geopriv Secretary cannot follow his own WG's 
consensuses, how can we blame authors from following consensuses of 
the WG (i.e., James W and Martin).

Or did everyone NOT pay attention to that consensus when it was taken 
but me (the author of the Conveyance document that is stipulating the 
event package to be used)?

BTW -- regarding SIP and doing LCP-like things -- there is a new 
requirement from another SDO (which I mention by name in the agps and 
triangulation IDs) for persistent connections which look an awful lot 
like a subscription-based dialog -- something HTTP cannot do, nor can 
DHCP.  These IDs are suggesting we revisit the SIP as an LCP 
*because* of this new requirement, and that's the only reason these 
docs were written.

I guess the INTRO needs to be clearer in both IDs as to this 
requirement. I'll fix that in the next rev of both.

> Ciao
> Hannes

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv