Subject: [dispatch] draft-winterbottom-dispatch-locparam-01

From: James Winterbottom <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 20:45:06 +1100

Hi All,

I was asked to make some updates to this document so that it could be dispatched.
I made, what I think were the requested updates back in December and posted to the list but I haven’t heard anything back.
ETSI needs this work as part of their M/493 stage-3 document so if there are further comments could they please be posted, otherwise can we please call for it to be dispatched somewhere?

Cheers
James

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:40:50 -0500

The updates were intended to address my comments. And indeed they do. 
I'm ok with this now.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 2/4/16 4:45 AM, James Winterbottom wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>

---

From: James Winterbottom <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 13:08:35 +1100

Thanks Paul.

What next is required to dispatch it?

Cheers
James

> On 5 Feb 2016, at 3:40 am, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The updates were intended to address my comments. And indeed they do. I'm ok with this now.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
>

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 10:58:05 -0500

> What next is required to dispatch it?

That is a question for the chairs.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:47:08 -0600

James - thanks for updating the document and Paul thanks for reviewing the
updates.

The chairs and ADs have had some offline discussions about how to move this
forward.  The current proposal is to AD sponsor the document.  However, we
would also like feedback from the WG, in particular folks that have been
active in ECRIT and GEOPRIV WGs, as to whether this seems reasonable or
whether we might need to consider a "mini" WG.    We do think that
additional text is necessary to further emphasize that this is only
recommended to be used in the context of a trusted network.

Please respond no later than Friday, March 11 , 2016.

Regards,
Mary

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:45 AM, James Winterbottom <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I made, what I think were the requested updates back in December and
> posted to the list but I haven’t heard anything back.
> ETSI needs this work as part of their M/493 stage-3 document so if there
> are further comments could they please be posted, otherwise can we please
> call for it to be dispatched somewhere?
>
> Cheers
> James
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:12:29 +0000

Hi Mary,

On 26/02/16 18:47, Mary Barnes wrote:
> only

What does that mean?

Ta,
S.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:52:21 -0600

>> recommended to be used in the context of a trusted network.

I think the point is, the draft needs to say what it means :-).

And actually, the current version does have a Spec(T) [RFC 3325] 
reference. But I think the request here is for clarification of 
application scope assumptions. For example, it mentions 3GPP and ETSI 
architectures; do we expect its use to be limited to those 
architectures?

This probably goes beyond just trust issues.  For example, what happens 
when a recipient that does not understand this extension tries to 
interpret a location value that uses it.

Ben. (Who is answering off the top of his head, and apologizes in 
advance if he forgot something in the draft that answers all this).