Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC 3825

From: Hannes Tschofenig ^lt;Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
Date: Tue Apr 21 2009 - 15:01:32 EDT

Good.

That's what we should do.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com]
>Sent: 21 April, 2009 21:17
>To: Hannes Tschofenig
>Cc: 'Allan Thomson (althomso)'; Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com;
>drage@alcatel-lucent.com; geopriv@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC 3825
>
>I had also proposed repurposing some of the 'datum' bits as
>'version' bits
>
><http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg07085.html>
>
>This has the same effect as registering three new datums
>(data?) -- one for each existing datum in the new interpretation.
>
>--Richard
>
>
>
>
>Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> I suggest to register a new datum.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
>>> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Allan Thomson
>>> (althomso)
>>> Sent: 21 April, 2009 18:54
>>> To: Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com; drage@alcatel-lucent.com; rbarnes@bbn.com
>>> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC
>>> 3825
>>>
>>> I have a question about backward/forward compatibility between
>>> 3825 and 3825bis.
>>>
>>> As 3825bis appears to be redefining the
>resolution/uncertainty fields
>>> how is a device supposed to know the difference between
>each version?
>>> Is there a field in the 3825bis payload that identifies
>that it is a
>>> new interpretation of the fields?
>>>
>>> For example, if I have a device that has implemented 3825
>>> (original) and that device connects to an enterprise network that
>>> provides the information - it understands the fields in one
>way. Then
>>> the device moves to a hotspot that is providing location based on
>>> 3825bis.
>>>
>>> How does that device learn that the fields should be interrupted
>>> differently?
>>>
>>> Allan
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
>>> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:06 AM
>>> To: drage@alcatel-lucent.com; rbarnes@bbn.com
>>> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC
>>> 3825
>>>
>>> Keith,
>>>
>>> IEEE needs a conclusion on this document asap. Do you have a
>>> technical argument against 3825bis? The restructuring issues can be
>>> handled at a later stage.
>>>
>>> My answer to Richard's question: YES.
>>>
>>> - gabor
>>>
>>>
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
>[mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>> >Behalf Of ext DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>>> >Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:19 AM
>>> >To: Richard Barnes
>>> >Cc: 'GEOPRIV'
>>> >Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC
>>> 3825
>>> >
>>> >I have just created a diff of the RFC against the I-D.
>>> Because there has
>>> >been some radical restructuring, and because there have been
>>> attempts to >do a complete rewrite, this is not the
>direction I want
>>> to see this work >go. Therefore I must still reject the 3825bis
>>> draft as a starting point.
>>> >
>>> >In my view the effective changes on the document must be
>much less
>>> >radical, i.e. no restructuring of the document, no rewrite of
>>> clauses >where we are not attempting to address problems,
>and so on.
>>> >
>>> >regards
>>> >
>>> >Keith
>>> >
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com] >> Sent:
>Tuesday,
>>> April 21, 2009 11:21 AM >> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) >> Cc:
>>> 'GEOPRIV'
>>> >> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for
>revisions to RFC
>>> 3825
>>> >>
>>> >> Keith,
>>> >>
>>> >> What Hannes said is correct: The question is whether the >>
>>> document in question should be used as a starting point for >> the
>>> WG document. The issue of scope is independent of this >>
>question
>>> (but related, since one would like the starting >> point
>to be close
>>> to the goal), since the document will be >> revised to meet the
>>> needs of the WG.
>>> >>
>>> >> --Richard
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
>>> >> > I have some major problems with this question, and >>
>>> therefore the answer has to be no.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The underlying basis for any revision has to be
>RFC3825. I >>
>>> am not in favour of a carte blanche replacement of RFC 3825.
>>> >> In the absence of consensus, current 3825 requirements prevail.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > What we should be attempting to do is fix the problems in >>
>>> RFC 3825. So I would prefer questions asked on: Do we agree >> on
>>> the fix of a specific issues.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Keith
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> >> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org >> >>
>>> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard
>Barnes >> >>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:43 AM >> >> To: 'GEOPRIV'
>>> >> >> Subject: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC
>>> 3825
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> All,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Based on the prior thread about the scope of 3825 fixes, it
>>> sounds >> >> like the closest of the three proposed documents to
>>> what >> people want >> >> is
>draft-thomson-geopriv-3825bis-03. So
>>> I would like to put the >> >> following question to the group:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Should the WG document for revisions to RFC 3825 be
>based on
>>> >> >> draft-thomson-geopriv-3825bis-03?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Please respond to the list by Monday, 27 April 2009.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Thanks,
>>> >> >> --Richard
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> Geopriv mailing list
>>> >> >> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >Geopriv mailing list
>>> >Geopriv@ietf.org
>>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Geopriv mailing list
>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Geopriv mailing list
>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>>
>>
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:01:32 +0300

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 21 2009 - 15:00:14 EDT