Re: [Geopriv] HELD comment on responseTime parameter

From: Richard Barnes ^lt;rbarnes@bbn.com>
Date: Tue Aug 07 2007 - 08:23:50 EDT

I thought that there was some agreement on the compromise proposal to
keep the responseTime parameter, but make it optional and make the
default to return ASAP. Do people have disagreements with that?

--Richard

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> As I stated before, the basic IETF protocol design rule is that adding
> features requires rough consensus. I don't see such rough consensus here.
>
> On Aug 7, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Dawson, Martin wrote:
>
>> I'm hoping that the silence might mean that people are feeling more
>> sympathetic to supporting this parameter - with the agreed default
>> semantics.
>>
>> Am I overly optimistic?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:23:50 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 07 2007 - 08:24:02 EDT