Re: [Geopriv] Confused about draft-polk-geopriv-pidf-lo-4-agps-00.txt
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



You mentioned the presence event package vs. the location event package: When trying to implement some of the features we couldn't figure out how to accomplish the semantic with SIP presence. Maybe a lack of misunderstanding on how SIP presence works or maybe a real issue. Don't know yet.


I don't understand your persistent connection requirement.

James M. Polk wrote:
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

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



Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.