Subject: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-winterbottom-dispatch-locparam-01.txt

From: James Winterbottom <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 18:45:25 +1100

Hi All,

Sorry it has taken so long to get this draft updated.

When it was presented back in June by Andy there were two issues raised that required attention prior to being dispatched.
They were both raised by Paul Kyzivat.

The first was that it wasn’t overly clear the type of trust domain that the parameter was intended to operate in and he requested a reference to RFC 3325. This has been added.

The second was that he pointed out that the text was expecting a fully qualified host name but didn’t say anything about the use of IP addresses. I have added language around this.

Could we please look for a more permanent home for it now?

Cheers
James

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: [email-masked]
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-winterbottom-dispatch-locparam-01.txt
> Date: 5 December 2015 6:40:48 pm AEDT
> To: "Laura Liess" <[email-masked]>, "Bruno Chatras" <[email-masked]>, "Laura Liess" <[email-masked]>, "James Winterbottom" <[email-masked]>, "Andrew Hutton" <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-winterbottom-dispatch-locparam-01.txt
> has been successfully submitted by James Winterbottom and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-winterbottom-dispatch-locparam
> Revision:	01
> Title:		Location Source Parameter for the SIP Geolocation Header Field
> Document date:	2015-12-04
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		7
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-winterbottom-dispatch-locparam-01.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-winterbottom-dispatch-locparam/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-winterbottom-dispatch-locparam-01
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-winterbottom-dispatch-locparam-01
> 
> Abstract:
>   There are some circumstances where a geolocation header field may
>   contain more than one location value.  Knowing the identity of the
>   node adding the location value allows the recipient more freedom in
>   selecting the value to look at first rather than relying solely on
>   the order of the location values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
>