The following is the details of the review call and agenda for the call. Comments are welcomed by email before the start of the call.
Regards Keith I have posted the comments from WGLC on draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance at: http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/reviews/location-conveyance/index.html Please let me know if I have missed any comments. There will be a review conference call of these comments on: Wednesday 25th April at 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Central US time 2:00 pm - 4:00 pm Eastern US time 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm UK time 8:00 pm - 10:00 pm Central Europe time Bridge details: Chairperson Name: KEITH DRAGE Access Phone Number: 8007718734 International Access Phone Number: +1 6477233953 7-Digit Access Code: 5776249 While this call is in no sense restricted, this call is for people who have reviewed the document. If you think you qualify, and have not sent comments that are included above, or indeed reviewed and had no comments, then please send me a mail indicating this. Agenda: 1) Roll call 2) Agenda bash - lets not spend too much time moving things around, concentrate on what is missing, or what does not need to be discussed. Note that the comments listed below are only what are regarded as the more major issues meriting collective discussion and review - I expect the editors to use their initiative on many of the others. 3) Methodology First discussion of key points. If new comments arise from discussion, please identify verbally and ensure they are documented. Comments discussed can have resolution agreed in the call, or defer, or take to list, or leave to authors to make a judgement. 4) Issues relating to multiple locations Comments: 2, 3, (66), 78, 94, 96, 153, 164 Key questions: Do we want multiple locations? If there are multiple locations, which should be used? If a 424 is returned, which location does it relate to? Which location does the warning refer to? In what circumstances can multiple locations cause a call to fail - or can one be used and ignore the rest? If you have a location by value, do you need to also resolve any location by reference? Anything different for multiple locations in responses? 5) Security issues Comments: 21, 27, 117A, 129C, 129D, 168, 181A, 181B, 137 Key questions: Any issues with mandating multipart MIME? Signing versus encryption issues? Document security issues when retrieving location by reference? Are mechanisms different for LbyrR and LbyV? Is security considerations section adequate? Are self signed certificates out of scope? Is mandating a retry without TLS in scope? 6) Emergency issues Comments: 129B, 167A, 169 Key questions: Should we cover emergency at all in this document? 7) Response usage Comments: 29, 150 Key questions: Is it allowed in responses, and if so, what are the procedures for error handling? What are the associated Require: and Supported: procedures? 8) Error handling issues Comments: 30, 79, 84, 85, 110, 147 Key questions: Dialog usage - does 424 clear the dialog or just the specific usage? Can Warning only appear in 424? Do we need all the warnings given? Do we need 701? What mechanism should we use to indicate URL schemes? Do we always return an error, or can we just ignore a problem? 9) Method usage Comments: 62, 69, 73, 74 Key questions: INFO? Mid call location updates use what mechanism? REFER? PUBLISH? BYE? 10) Body issues Comments: 159 Key questions: What additional information is needed to describe bodies? 11) PIDF-LO usage Comments: 121, 153A Key questions: Point usage deprecated? Proxy usage - what can proxy say about this location - is this in scope of this document or does GEOPRIV need to handle it? 12) URI issues Comments: 7, 64 Key questions: 13) Routeing query allowed issues Comments: 11 Key questions: 14) Retransmission allowed issues Comments: 61A Key questions: Is mechanism needed? 15) Terminology usage Comments: 1, 19, 43A, 101A, 116B, 129A Key questions Are "by value" and "by reference" the appropriate terms? Is LbyR a using protocol? Are there any circumstances where we need to talk about LIS rather than LS? 16) Pull mechanisms Comments: 25, 144A Key questions: Are the mentioned pull mechanism valid, given that we don't cover them at all? > -----Original Message----- > From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:39 PM > To: IETF SIP List > Subject: RE: [Sip] Review of draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance > > A reminder of the call tomorrow, and also that I have posted > an updated set of comments including some late comments received. > > The numbering remains consistent for the comments that were > previously posted, and we will refer to comments by numbers > on the call tomorrow. > > Keith > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 6:13 PM > > To: IETF SIP List > > Subject: [Sip] Review of draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance > > > > I have posted the comments from WGLC on > > draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance at: > > > > > http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/reviews/location-conveyance/index.html > > > > Please let me know if I have missed any comments. > > > > There will be a review conference call of these comments on: > > > > Wednesday 25th April at > > > > 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Central US time > > 2:00 pm - 4:00 pm Eastern US time > > 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm UK time > > 8:00 pm - 10:00 pm Central Europe time > > > > Bridge details: > > > > Chairperson Name: KEITH DRAGE > > Access Phone Number: 8007718734 > > International Access Phone Number: +1 6477233953 7-Digit > Access Code: > > 5776249 > > > > While this call is in no sense restricted, this call is for > people who > > have reviewed the document. If you think you qualify, and have not > > sent comments that are included above, or indeed reviewed > and had no > > comments, then please send me a mail indicating this. > > > > Regards > > > > Keith > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use > [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
