On Nov 21, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 2:28 PM -0600 11/21/07, James M. Polk wrote:
The "recipient=" within the Geolocation header is a SIP parameter,
in a SIP document. Everything discussed in Geopriv regarding this
document needs to be approved in SIP too. The SIP WG hasn't heard
this part of the discussion because most members of SIP aren't
subscribed to the Geopriv list.
That SIP parameter in a SIP document relates to a PIDF-LO object
carried by
SIP; in that context, SIP is a using protocol of the GEOPRIV
framework. SIP
folks should certainly understand the work they're reusing, or the
implementations
won't do the right thing. But re-starting the conversation in SIP
without
reference to the discussions that have already occurred in GeoPRIV
is a
recipe for conflict at IETF Last Call. We might as well start
getting people
on the same page now. From my perspective, the right way to do
that is
to start the discussion from where it last left off, even if that
wasn't in
the same group. That tells people where the consensus of that
group was
and informs the rest of the discussion.
Supposedly, the discussion in GEOPRIV was a joint SIP/GEOPRIV effort.
A brief recap of the conclusion in GEOPRIV might be reasonable, but
I'd much rather not revisit the thousands of emails on the topic in
GEOPRIV. If we notice now that it is broken in some horrible way we
didn't, before, that might change the situation, but we shouldn't
rehash the entire design rationale.
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
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
