Re: [Geopriv] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6225 (3202)

This seems appropriate.

James

At 10:59 AM 4/26/2012, Martin Thomson wrote:
>Valid. Recommend hold for document update.
>
>On 26 April 2012 01:18, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> >
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6225,
> > "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options
> for Coordinate-Based Location Configuration Information".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6225&eid=3202
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
> >
> > Section: 4.3, pg. 19
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > Â Description: The description of the altitude described by this code.
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > Â Description: The description of the datum (coordinate system)
> > Â Â Â described by this code.
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > Rationale: copyedit artifact; text obviously copied from
> > Â Section 4.2. (Altitude Type Registry) without performing
> > Â the needed adaptation for Section 4.3. (Datum Registry).
> >
> > Instructions:
> > -------------
> > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC6225 (draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis-17)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title        : Dynamic Host
> Configuration Protocol Options for
> Coordinate-Based Location Configuration Information
> > Publication Date   : July 2011
> > Author(s) Â Â Â Â Â : J. Polk, M. Linsner, M. Thomson, B. Aboba, Ed.
> > Category       : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source        : Geographic Location/Privacy
> > Area         : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
> > Stream        : IETF
> > Verifying Party   : IESG
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Re: [Geopriv] WGLC on draft-ietf-geopriv-relative-location-02

We got 1 response to this, and it was from an author. We need to hear from more of the WG before proceeding.

On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:

> Dear GEOPRIV,
>
> This is a Working Group Last Call for comments on draft-ietf-geopriv-relative-location-02:
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-relative-location-02>
>
> Please send comments to the list no later than Friday, 20 April 2012.
>
> Remember that all comments are helpful, even if it's just "Looks good to me". You can also say "Doesn't look good to me", but it's more helpful to say why!
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa and Richard
> The GEOPRIV Chairs
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Re: [Geopriv] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6225 (3202)

Valid. Recommend hold for document update.

On 26 April 2012 01:18, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6225,
> "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options for Coordinate-Based Location Configuration Information".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6225&eid=3202
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
>
> Section: 4.3, pg. 19
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>   Description: The description of the altitude described by this code.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>   Description: The description of the datum (coordinate system)
>      described by this code.
>
> Notes
> -----
> Rationale: copyedit artifact; text obviously copied from
>  Section 4.2. (Altitude Type Registry) without performing
>  the needed adaptation for Section 4.3. (Datum Registry).
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6225 (draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis-17)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options for Coordinate-Based Location Configuration Information
> Publication Date    : July 2011
> Author(s)           : J. Polk, M. Linsner, M. Thomson, B. Aboba, Ed.
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Geographic Location/Privacy
> Area                : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
> _______________________________________________
> 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] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6225 (3202)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6225,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options for Coordinate-Based Location Configuration Information".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6225&eid=3202

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah@TR-Sys.de>

Section: 4.3, pg. 19

Original Text
-------------
Description: The description of the altitude described by this code.

Corrected Text
--------------
Description: The description of the datum (coordinate system)
described by this code.

Notes
-----
Rationale: copyedit artifact; text obviously copied from
Section 4.2. (Altitude Type Registry) without performing
the needed adaptation for Section 4.3. (Datum Registry).

Instructions:
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC6225 (draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis-17)
--------------------------------------
Title : Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options for Coordinate-Based Location Configuration Information
Publication Date : July 2011
Author(s) : J. Polk, M. Linsner, M. Thomson, B. Aboba, Ed.
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : Geographic Location/Privacy
Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

Re: [Geopriv] WGLC on draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-04

One nit: section 4 and section 5 have the same title, which could be a bit confusing. Since section 4 is more about the data model elements than actual data types, I would suggest changing the section 4 title.

Alissa

On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:

> Dear GEOPRIV,
>
> This is a Working Group Last Call for comments on draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-04:
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-04>
>
> Please send comments to the list no later than Friday, 20 April 2012.
>
> Remember that all comments are helpful, even if it's just "Looks good to me". You can also say "Doesn't look good to me", but it's more helpful to say why!
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa and Richard
> The GEOPRIV Chairs
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Re: [Geopriv] IETF 83 minutes

I'm sorry, my mistake in notetaking. Not that I've made any other
mistakes, ever.

--Martin

On 2 April 2012 23:48, Richard L. Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> GEOPRIV is OAR SOME!
>>> >>
>>> >> __boring status stuff
>>> >>
>>> >> AD asked about DHC LbyR - there is an apps review that is very new
>>> >>
>>> >> Ray Bellis asked about draft expiry and WGLC, was asked to revise the draft
>>> >
>>> > Alissa
>>> >
>>> > Ray was asked to revise the DHC LbyR draft?
>>> >
>>> > James
>>>
>>> He was asked to issue a new revision, with no content changes, so that the draft would be live again.
>>
>> Did you chairs fire me as editor and not tell me?
>>
>> James
>
> Ah, sorry, now I understand the confusion.  In that sentence, "draft expiry" refers to draft-ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery, not draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option.  So, no change in authorship.
>
> --Richard
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Re: [Geopriv] IETF 83 minutes

>>
>> >> GEOPRIV is OAR SOME!
>> >>
>> >> __boring status stuff
>> >>
>> >> AD asked about DHC LbyR - there is an apps review that is very new
>> >>
>> >> Ray Bellis asked about draft expiry and WGLC, was asked to revise the draft
>> >
>> > Alissa
>> >
>> > Ray was asked to revise the DHC LbyR draft?
>> >
>> > James
>>
>> He was asked to issue a new revision, with no content changes, so that the draft would be live again.
>
> Did you chairs fire me as editor and not tell me?
>
> James

Ah, sorry, now I understand the confusion. In that sentence, "draft expiry" refers to draft-ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery, not draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option. So, no change in authorship.

--Richard
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

Re: [Geopriv] IETF 83 minutes

At 12:09 PM 4/2/2012, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> >> Minutes - GEOPRIV - IETF 83
> >>
> >> Summary:
> >>
> >> 1. Chairs' Introduction
> >> The chairs noted the publication of RFC 6447 since the last
> IETF. The AD noted that a new apps area review has come in for
> draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option. The WG's three remaining
> active drafts entered WGLC during the meeting session. The authors
> of draft-ietf-res-gw-lis-discovery agreed to rev their draft since
> it had expired and needs more comments before it can be pub requested.
> >>
> >> 2. draft-bellis-geopriv-flow-identity-00
> >> This draft received a few suggested improvements, but was
> uncontroversial overall. Ray will rev based on feedback, followed
> by a likely combined call for adoption/WGLC.
> >>
> >> 3. Where do we go from here?
> >> The WG will remain open at least until all current drafts are
> through the IESG, although may not meet face-to-face.
> >>
> >> 4. draft-thomson-geopriv-uncertainty-07
> >> Martin agreed to rev this expired draft and Roger agreed to do a review.
> >>
> >>
> >> Raw notes from the tools.ietf.org etherpad follow
> >> ----------
> >>
> >> GEOPRIV is OAR SOME!
> >>
> >> __boring status stuff
> >>
> >> AD asked about DHC LbyR - there is an apps review that is very new
> >>
> >> Ray Bellis asked about draft expiry and WGLC, was asked to
> revise the draft
> >
> > Alissa
> >
> > Ray was asked to revise the DHC LbyR draft?
> >
> > James
>
>He was asked to issue a new revision, with no content changes, so
>that the draft would be live again.

Did you chairs fire me as editor and not tell me?

James

>--Richard

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

Re: [Geopriv] IETF 83 minutes

>> Minutes - GEOPRIV - IETF 83
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> 1. Chairs' Introduction
>> The chairs noted the publication of RFC 6447 since the last IETF. The AD noted that a new apps area review has come in for draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option. The WG's three remaining active drafts entered WGLC during the meeting session. The authors of draft-ietf-res-gw-lis-discovery agreed to rev their draft since it had expired and needs more comments before it can be pub requested.
>>
>> 2. draft-bellis-geopriv-flow-identity-00
>> This draft received a few suggested improvements, but was uncontroversial overall. Ray will rev based on feedback, followed by a likely combined call for adoption/WGLC.
>>
>> 3. Where do we go from here?
>> The WG will remain open at least until all current drafts are through the IESG, although may not meet face-to-face.
>>
>> 4. draft-thomson-geopriv-uncertainty-07
>> Martin agreed to rev this expired draft and Roger agreed to do a review.
>>
>>
>> Raw notes from the tools.ietf.org etherpad follow
>> ----------
>>
>> GEOPRIV is OAR SOME!
>>
>> __boring status stuff
>>
>> AD asked about DHC LbyR - there is an apps review that is very new
>>
>> Ray Bellis asked about draft expiry and WGLC, was asked to revise the draft
>
> Alissa
>
> Ray was asked to revise the DHC LbyR draft?
>
> James

He was asked to issue a new revision, with no content changes, so that the draft would be live again.

--Richard
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

Re: [Geopriv] IETF 83 minutes

At 08:58 AM 4/2/2012, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>Minutes - GEOPRIV - IETF 83
>
>Summary:
>
>1. Chairs' Introduction
>The chairs noted the publication of RFC 6447 since the last IETF.
>The AD noted that a new apps area review has come in for
>draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option. The WG's three remaining
>active drafts entered WGLC during the meeting session. The authors
>of draft-ietf-res-gw-lis-discovery agreed to rev their draft since
>it had expired and needs more comments before it can be pub requested.
>
>2. draft-bellis-geopriv-flow-identity-00
>This draft received a few suggested improvements, but was
>uncontroversial overall. Ray will rev based on feedback, followed by
>a likely combined call for adoption/WGLC.
>
>3. Where do we go from here?
>The WG will remain open at least until all current drafts are
>through the IESG, although may not meet face-to-face.
>
>4. draft-thomson-geopriv-uncertainty-07
>Martin agreed to rev this expired draft and Roger agreed to do a review.
>
>
>Raw notes from the tools.ietf.org etherpad follow
>----------
>
>GEOPRIV is OAR SOME!
>
>__boring status stuff
>
>AD asked about DHC LbyR - there is an apps review that is very new
>
>Ray Bellis asked about draft expiry and WGLC, was asked to revise the draft

Alissa

Ray was asked to revise the DHC LbyR draft?

James

>_______________________________________________
>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] IETF 83 minutes

Minutes - GEOPRIV - IETF 83

Summary:

1. Chairs' Introduction
The chairs noted the publication of RFC 6447 since the last IETF. The AD noted that a new apps area review has come in for draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option. The WG's three remaining active drafts entered WGLC during the meeting session. The authors of draft-ietf-res-gw-lis-discovery agreed to rev their draft since it had expired and needs more comments before it can be pub requested.

2. draft-bellis-geopriv-flow-identity-00
This draft received a few suggested improvements, but was uncontroversial overall. Ray will rev based on feedback, followed by a likely combined call for adoption/WGLC.

3. Where do we go from here?
The WG will remain open at least until all current drafts are through the IESG, although may not meet face-to-face.

4. draft-thomson-geopriv-uncertainty-07
Martin agreed to rev this expired draft and Roger agreed to do a review.

Raw notes from the tools.ietf.org etherpad follow
----------

GEOPRIV is OAR SOME!

__boring status stuff

AD asked about DHC LbyR - there is an apps review that is very new

Ray Bellis asked about draft expiry and WGLC, was asked to revise the draft

__flow identity

martin thomson noted that the src/dst fields could be ambiguously interpreted, it's not clear which end applies to the target

marc linsner asks who actually creates the request, is it under the same rules as for RFC 6155
ray bellis yes, it's 6155

question of adoption deferred

__where do we go from here?

the bar?

question asked: who needs the working group?

marc: this is parallel to ecrit. there is potentially work for emergency services and location for dealing with emergency services in XMPP might need a working group host for that

roger marshall: wants to keep the WG alive, likes my super-fantastic uncertainty draft

robert sparks: the wg is going to be alive for at least as long as it takes to get rid of the current work, most likely, we will have our answer by then

martin thomson talks impromptu about his awesome-terrific uncertainty draft
roger talks about confidence, promises to review said great draft

martin thomson will rev his super-dooper draft soon

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv