Subject: [Ecrit] Requesting IETF LC for phonebcp

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:37:07 -0600

All -

I've requested IETFLC for the phonebcp draft. There are still some outstanding questions/comments from John Elwell that should be treated as last call comments.
Also, something needs to register the sos.*.test URNs. I think this document could do that.

RjS

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:50:09 -0600

Robert

(dare I say this)

Now that Location Conveyance (a norm ref in phonebcp) is down to the 
final open issue -- with the hope that this issue realistically can 
be solved on Thursday's design team call -- we (probably meaning at 
least me) need to review phonebcp wrt the recent changes to Location 
Conveyance. In other words, I'm not sure phonebcp has had meaningful 
edits since Location Conveyance deleted all the "inserted-by", 
"inserter=" cruft that halved the size of that ID, as well as 
Location Conveyance adopting a "you break it you bought it" attitude 
wrt SIP intermediaries inserting location. This will likely impact 
some of the finer details within phonebcp.

James

At 04:37 PM 2/7/2011, Robert Sparks wrote:
>All -
>
>I've requested IETFLC for the phonebcp draft. There are still some 
>outstanding questions/comments from John Elwell that should be 
>treated as last call comments.
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:58:02 -0600

Please do. I think you'll find, though, that this document deferred to location conveyance for those finer details. If you spot otherwise, let's fix it.

RjS

On Feb 7, 2011, at 4:50 PM, James M. Polk wrote:

> Robert
> 
> (dare I say this)
> 
> Now that Location Conveyance (a norm ref in phonebcp) is down to the final open issue -- with the hope that this issue realistically can be solved on Thursday's design team call -- we (probably meaning at least me) need to review phonebcp wrt the recent changes to Location Conveyance. In other words, I'm not sure phonebcp has had meaningful edits since Location Conveyance deleted all the "inserted-by", "inserter=" cruft that halved the size of that ID, as well as Location Conveyance adopting a "you break it you bought it" attitude wrt SIP intermediaries inserting location. This will likely impact some of the finer details within phonebcp.
> 
> James
>

---

From: Gunnar Hellström <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:28:36 +0100

I think I discussed a need for a minor change in September.

It is in the Media chapter 14.

This statement:
"ED-75 Endpoints supporting Instant Messaging (IM) MUST support both 
[RFC3428] and [RFC4975]."

It looks strange to require both IM protocols of the endpoint. Usually 
they support one.  The requirement would be suitable for a PSAP.

So, the agreement was to change to:

"ED-75 Endpoints supporting Instant Messaging (IM) MUST support either 
[RFC3428] or [RFC4975]."

( maybe there is now even an interest to add XMPP to that list, or do we 
then open for a heap of complications regarding addressing and location 
information etc. )

I do not regard this to be a subtantial issue, so I did not want to 
bother the ietf mail list with it.

/Gunnar
------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 05:33:15 -0800

I agree with this comment -- both should be required in the PSAP, not the endpoint. 

On XMPP support for emergency services, that is probably something
to bring to the XMPP WG (or the XSF).  The question will remain open
until there is documentation, either describing how it can be done, or
explaining why it is not supported.  Until then, phonebcp should probably
remain silent. 

> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:28:36 +0100
> From: [email-masked]
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Requesting IETF LC for phonebcp - Minor IM issue
>

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:14:31 -0500

Yes, I agree.

I'm certain we will have a rev due to LC comments, and I will fix the text in that rev.

concur with Bernard on xmpp.

Brian

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 07:41:37 -0800

FYI, I raised the question of support for emergency services on the XMPP WG mailing list (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp/current/msg02388.html ). 

Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Requesting IETF LC for phonebcp - Minor IM issue
From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:14:31 -0500
CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

Yes, I agree.
I'm certain we will have a rev due to LC comments, and I will fix the text in that rev.
concur with Bernard on xmpp.
Brian
On Feb 8, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:I agree with this comment -- both should be required in the PSAP, not the endpoint.

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 14:25:46 -0600

<hat type="individual" />

(I saw this on the XMPP list first, so my extended reply is there.  I just sent it, so can't provide a link yet.)

I do not think we should add XMPP to phonebcp at this point.  Even though XMPP for emergency services is a great idea, it would not be a trivial addition.  Let's let phonebcp go to RFC and handle XMPP in an update.

--Richard

---

From: Marc Linsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:39:20 -0500

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 14:25:46 -0600
To: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Requesting IETF LC for phonebcp - Minor IM issue

>(I saw this on the XMPP list first, so my extended reply is there.  I
>just sent it, so can't provide a link yet.)
>
>I do not think we should add XMPP to phonebcp at this point.  Even though
>XMPP for emergency services is a great idea, it would not be a trivial
>addition.  Let's let phonebcp go to RFC and handle XMPP in an update.
>
>--Richard
>
>
>
>
>>> > >>> I've requested IETFLC for the phonebcp draft. There are still
>>>some outstanding questions/comments from John Elwell that should be

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:18:05 -0600

+ another