In response to Brian's reservations on -measurements: Looks like Richard beat me to it :)
If you ignore the draft name, -measurements is purposely written in a protocol-ambivalent fashion, with the only assumption being that there is some form of request-response semantics. There are examples for HELD, that's the only protocol-specific part.
It's been like that for a while. Marc Linsner requested that we avoid protocol-specific ages back.
--Martin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard L. Barnes
> Sent: Monday, 28 June 2010 2:53 PM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Fwd: Call for consensus: WG item adoption
>
> <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
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
