Re: RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-conveyance
"James M. Polk" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip,gmane.ietf.geopriv |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
At 08:32 AM 7/27/2006 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote: >On Jul 27, 2006, at 12:08 AM, James M. Polk wrote: > >>At 11:37 PM 7/26/2006 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote: >> >>>On Jul 26, 2006, at 11:27 PM, James M. Polk wrote: >>> >>>>I think Geopriv really needs to look at HTTP as a RFC 3693 "using >>>>protocol" to tease out any unique characteristics with that >>>>protocol. That discussion and review shouldn't bog this document >>>>down. Does this sound fair? >>> >>>Most definitely. We've had discussions on HTTP as a using protocol >>>for 3 years in GEOPRIV, HELD being the latest incarnation. The first >>>proposals ran into serious privacy concerns. Anything that simply >>>says "use HTTP" is an attempt to work around answering the serious >>>privacy concerns raised in GEOPRIV. >> >>is this said with your WG chair hat on? >> >>It sounds pretty definitive to these ears... > >I don't believe working group chairs are given any special powers >that such a decision is in their hands. fair - but Brian asked for WG chair guidance because several points were churning over and over again (perhaps at Layer 8 - Religious), and I was asking if this view could be taken as WG chair guidance? >Any individual participant >can approach an AD or the IESG either informally or via appeal about >attempts to work around working group consensus. Such things are >taken seriously by the IESG, to the point that they can stop the >publication of an RFC sent directly to the RFC Editor on this basis. > >-andy _______________________________________________ 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