Re: [Geopriv] SIP Location Conveyance -03 submitted

From: James M. Polk ^lt;jmpolk@cisco.com>
Date: Thu Jun 29 2006 - 22:46:01 EDT

At 10:28 PM 6/29/2006 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:

>On Jun 29, 2006, at 7:28 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
>>
>>I've had the SIP WG chairs bitch at me that this ID isn't getting
>>the necessary attention in the SIP WG (during a massive thread on
>>the Geopriv list), and were considering dropping the ID from their
>>milestones. They asked that this ID get discussed on the SIP
>>list. They do not subscribe to the Geopriv list, thus I'm kinda
>>caught in the middle, with ECRIT (seriously) waiting on this doc to
>>progress too.
>>
>>I wouldn't mind if the WG chairs from SIP, Geopriv and ECRIT get
>>together and make a decision where this is to be discussed. I
>>don't care. I just want this doc to progress.
>>
>>Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated!
>
>If the SIP wg co-chairs believe this document is not getting the
>necessary review in the SIP wg, then this document should be moved
>over to GEOPRIV.
>
>Are there any objections to this?

Here're my druthers: let's see what happens in 11 days (SIP is Monday at
1300 local time, and I present in that session). If it doesn't move, then
you can have a conversation with Dean and Keith. If it appears to be
moving in SIP, then I think that's the fastest way to RFC, because there
are few open issues remaining, if any.

>-andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:46:01 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 29 2006 - 23:23:10 EDT