A few things. Firstly the HUM was adoption or rejection, your post was non-committal, it wasn't a call for comments, it was a HUM.
Martin posted an explicit email about your comments yesterday.
I would further add my comments to his:
I don't agree with the proposed title change for two reasons. Firstly, the proposed change describes one possible usage of the elements specified in the document. Secondly, the chnage doesn't describe what is actually specified in the document. I believe that if the title "Use of Device Identity in HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)" is accurate for what the document describes.
I believe that Bernard Aboba has stated on a number of occasions very clear cases where the device can/must provide an identifier other than its return-routable IP address to the LIS in order to obtain its location. This concept is clearly defined in the L7 LCP requirements document also. If you believe Bernard if wrong in the use cases that he has proposed, then I beseech you to provide a means in the same environment for providing the feature set, without having to use an additional target-provided identifier.
Cheers
James
-----Original Message-----
From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Marc Linsner
Sent: Tue 9/15/2009 11:48 AM
To: Alissa Cooper; GEOPRIV
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] WG2LC: draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-00.txt
Alissa,
I would like to first see that comments submitted from the prior requests
are acknowledged by the authors.
I submitted comments to which there was no response:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg07804.html
So we have an author that is a chair approving documents without
acknowledging or addressing comments received from a 3-day
solicitation-for-comments by the same.
I think following normal IETF procedure would be a better course of action.
This document should not have been approved as a wg item until all comments
are addressed.
-Marc-
On 9/15/09 11:58 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <acooper@cdt.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> In an effort to generate discussion and progress a bit more
> efficiently in the WG, Richard and I would like to experiment with
> something we're calling "working group second-to-last call" (WG2LC).
> We think the existing structures that set deadlines for comment (WGLC,
> IETF LC, etc.) are rather effective at motivating people to take a
> look at documents of interest, so we'd like to extend that concept a
> bit further. WG2LC is what it sounds like: an informal call for
> comments with a deadline, preceding the issuance of an official WGLC.
> The idea is to air some discussion about a document before it reaches
> the point of being ready for WGLC.
>
> As a first experiment for WG2LC, consider this a working group second-
> to-last call for comments on
>
> draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-00.txt
>
> Please send your comments about this document to the list by 23
> September 2009.
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
