Re: Teasing apart positions (was Re: RE: [Geopriv] Consensus onchanges to location-conveyance)

Martin, you did not answer my question.  You are right that HTTP as a  
using protocol is a separate question, one which I will ask about.

-andy

On Jul 27, 2006, at 1:00 AM, Thomson, Martin wrote:

> Since I raised the question, I'll answer.
>
> We have a set of requirements on a using protocol in RFC 3693.
>
> I believe that HTTP with proper constraints (TLS, etc...) can meet,  
> or already meets, those requirements.  That is irrespective of any  
> decisions that need to be made about secondary concerns like  
> whether HTTP is desirable, optimal, deployable etc...  However, it  
> is clear that people aren't happy with this position and are  
> requesting that this be documented, as an RFC.  Just to get it all  
> out in the open.  Presumably this would be a standards track RFC  
> that, like location-conveyance, highlights how the RFC 3693  
> requirements are addressed.
>
> That's a sound argument, and obviously location-conveyance had to  
> meet that standard for us to be happy.  Now, I ask that you go  
> back, take the above paragraph and perform one simple operation and  
> read it again: s/HTTP/SIP/g.  Is the argument any different in the  
> presence of RFC 4079?  Is an informational RFC that doesn't address  
> specific requirements adequate?  I'd suggest that it wouldn't make  
> the grade for HTTP.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Thursday, 27 July 2006 1:55 PM
>> To: IETF SIP List; GEOPRIV
>> Subject: Teasing apart positions (was Re: [Sip] RE: [Geopriv]  
>> Consensus
>> onchanges to location-conveyance)
>>
>>
>> On Jul 26, 2006, at 11:08 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:
>>> The authors would like to know what to do now.
>>
>> Let's start by trying to tease apart certain positions.
>>
>> Given Jon Peterson's message:
>> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg15537.html
>>
>> Does anybody still believe that subscriptions to PIDF-LOs with pres:
>> requires more definition?
>>
>> -andy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> 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]


_______________________________________________
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