Re: [Geopriv] Fwd: Call for consensus: WG item adoption

From: Richard L. Barnes ^lt;rbarnes@bbn.com>
Date: Mon Jun 28 2010 - 00:52:54 EDT

<hat type="individual"/>

FWIW, what you're asking w.r.t. -measurements is basically what it
already does. Each measurement type is in its own namespace, as is
the measurements container itself. So in principle, you could re-use
these data structure elsewhere.

Related: I think -measurements is a very high-priority item. It is
needed to bring HELD to feature-parity with some of the most commonly-
used location protocols on the Internet (e.g., the Google and Skyhook
location protocols).

On Jun 27, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> I am in favor of adopting relative location and deref protocol.
>
> I am sanguine about -measurements. I don't think measurements are
> tied to a protocol. So, if I had my druthers, I'd define a protocol
> independent mechanism and then define transports of that mechanism
> for various protocols. However, since I don't have cycles available
> to do that, and holding up the draft is not reasonable for that
> reason, I can't stand in the way of adopting it.
>
> Brian
>
> On Jun 27, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>> We've had very little response to this call for consensus. If you
>> have an opinion either way about adopting these three documents as
>> working group items, please send it to the list by tomorrow
>> (Monday, June 28).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Alissa Cooper <acooper@cdt.org>
>>> Date: June 22, 2010 12:46:44 PM BST
>>> To: geopriv@ietf.org
>>> Subject: [Geopriv] Call for consensus: WG item adoption
>>>
>>> Since we've progressed a number of WG items recently, we have
>>> space in our queue for some new ones. I'd like to make a call for
>>> consensus about adopting the following three documents as GEOPRIV
>>> work items:
>>>
>>> 1) draft-thomson-geopriv-relative-location-01
>>> 2) draft-thomson-geopriv-held-measurements-06
>>> 3) draft-winterbottom-geopriv-deref-protocol-03
>>>
>>> These were all among the documents that received expressions of
>>> support from the working group at IETF 77 [1]. The top two have
>>> been recently revised to address feedback from the meeting, the
>>> list, and design team work.
>>>
>>> Please send your responses about each document to the list no
>>> later than Monday, June 28.
>>>
>>> Alissa
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg08428.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Geopriv mailing list
>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:52:54 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 28 2010 - 00:53:14 EDT