RE: [Geopriv] HELD comment on responseTime parameter

From: Brian Rosen ^lt;br@brianrosen.net>
Date: Sat Jul 21 2007 - 09:57:44 EDT

Please describe a realistic use case where there actual value in a variable,
especially with the client not understanding what the capabilities of the
server are.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom@andrew.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 11:17 PM
> To: Stark, Barbara; Mary Barnes; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] HELD comment on responseTime parameter
>
> I don't agree with this position for several reasons.
>
> The first is that in the geopriv space we are not simply talking about
> routing and I can wait applications, there may be a range of
> applications that we have not yet considered. Placing an unnecessary
> restriction of this type in the protocol may well stop it from being
> useful in other applications later.
>
> Secondly wireless networks deployed today may have several ways of
> determining the location of device, and each one takes a different
> amount of time. Moving this type parameter to being strictly to a binary
> scheme means that an LCS can only ever support two such mechanisms since
> if it has more than 2 it has no appreciative way of determining which of
> longer period mechanisms to invoke.
>
> I would like to see the parameter stay as it is.
>
> Cheers
> James
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2007 4:25 AM
> > To: Mary Barnes; geopriv@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Geopriv] HELD comment on responseTime parameter
> >
> > I'm probably opening a can of worms with this comment, but I'll make
> it
> > anyway...
> >
> > There have been discussions elsewhere as to whether it's really
> > useful/meaningful to specify a desired response time, or whether it's
> > better to specify that the response is needed right away (presumably
> for
> > routing purposes) or the device can wait a little to get a more
> precise
> > location.
> >
> > Should we have that conversation here, about this parameter?
> > Barbara
> >
> > *****
> >
> > 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. GA623
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > Geopriv@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------
> 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]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:57:44 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 21 2007 - 09:57:55 EDT