[06:20:16] HannesTschofenig joins the room [09:43:48] EXTENSION joins the room [09:44:49] EXTENSION leaves the room [09:46:42] Andy Hutton joins the room [09:47:57] Andy Hutton leaves the room [10:43:56] gcaron joins the room [10:52:13] JonathanLennox joins the room [10:52:28] JonathanLennox has set the subject to: IETF 75 GEOPRIV meeting [10:57:58] Simon Perreault joins the room [10:58:07] yo all [10:59:11] mlm.michael.miller joins the room [10:59:36] mlepinski joins the room [11:00:16] I am Jabber scribe [11:00:30] martin.thomson joins the room [11:00:31] First presentation: Chair's Introduction [11:00:40] Barbara joins the room [11:00:44] Slide: Note well [11:00:47] suzukisn joins the room [11:00:53] Slide: Agenda [11:03:15] Slide: Status [11:03:45] Simon Perreault leaves the room [11:04:20] Slide: Other items [11:04:53] dmeyer joins the room [11:04:54] CENTURION joins the room [11:05:44] EXTENSION joins the room [11:05:44] Joe Hildebrand joins the room [11:06:01] EXTENSION leaves the room [11:06:06] metricamerica joins the room [11:06:07] Andy Hutton joins the room [11:06:21] Presentation: geo URI [11:06:50] Slide: Current Status [11:07:13] thomas.stach joins the room [11:07:37] Slide: Othe CRSes - discussion [11:08:04] Randall Gellens joins the room [11:09:09] Slide: Other CRSes - changes [11:09:57] Slide: Open Issues [11:11:16] Presentation: loc-filters [11:11:22] Slide: Now based on RFC4661 [11:12:47] Slide: Issues [11:13:53] Presentation: geopriv-arch [11:16:08] Slide: Describing a LIS [11:21:08] The problem with conveyance is that it confuses terminology. [11:21:17] We could fix the confusion in conveyance as well. [11:22:13] James, we should not invent yet new terms. [11:22:17] We already far too many [11:23:39] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-13 still uses Sighters and refers to RFC 3693. Unfortunately, Sighter is not defined in RFC 3693. [11:23:51] Just one random example of the terminology used in the conveyance document. [11:24:02] I sent comments about this 2 years ago already [11:26:20] Staffan Kerker joins the room [11:27:17] If the LIS terminology is not clear then we need to fix http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-10.txt and http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-07.txt [11:27:23] Next Presentation: lbyr-uri option [11:27:39] Slide: what's changed between in WG -04 [11:28:10] Slide: Open Issues [11:29:12] I willing to clarify my comments. [11:29:30] I only reviewed the stuff that was in there. Not the text that wasn't in there. [11:29:46] There is no discussion about the entity attribute vs. the element. [11:29:54] Do you want me to say your comments at the mic? [11:30:24] You could say that this document also suffers from some terminology clearness [11:30:44] I am happy to clarify things [11:31:18] There was not a lot of working group feedback for the document at all. [11:31:57] The document is just not well written. If other folks would read it then they would recognize this as well. [11:33:26] I am commenting on this document for a long time already and was largely ignored. [11:33:39] The comment about the security stuff was out there a long time already. [11:38:27] Next presentation: RFC 3825bis [11:38:40] Slide: RFC 3825bis Overview [11:39:02] Theo joins the room [11:39:21] Slide: RFC 3825bis Issue Status [11:40:11] Staffan Kerker leaves the room [11:40:31] Slide: Feedback? [11:42:59] Next presentation: IEEE Liaison [11:43:40] Slide: Background [11:50:47] Slid: Summary of Request [11:52:51] Slide: References [11:53:34] Slide: Questions? [11:55:27] At the mic: Cullen Jennings [11:55:52] At the mic: Marc Lensner [11:56:06] Merridew joins the room [11:58:28] The 3GPP has already defined binary formats for the geodetic location shapes, see 3GPP TS 23.032 V7.0.0. Does it really make sense to define new binary encodings? [12:03:53] Next presentation: HELD Extensions [12:04:15] Slide: The Top 4 [12:05:16] Slide: Dereference [12:06:43] A dereference document is obviously useful since otherwise there is no way to resolve the reference to a location object. ] [12:07:08] James, why would we serialize them? [12:07:45] Dereference an HTTP URI, or some other URI such as a HELD URI? [12:08:20] If you ever looked at the document then you will notice that there is more than that [12:09:45] Merridew leaves the room: QIP Infium: Спокойное общение [12:10:01] martensson.jonas joins the room [12:10:09] Joe Hildebrand leaves the room: Disconnected. [12:10:13] All 4 are equally important and should be tackle in parallel [12:10:18] Slide: Identity [12:10:27] I was responding to what you posted which I took to be in response to what Martin said [12:12:42] I believe the URI scheme is currently https:// in HELD rather than helds:// [12:14:08] metricamerica leaves the room [12:14:09] Marc, don't pretend you haven't heard about this HELD identity concept before. [12:16:43] Brian, this is the stuff that you will need in NENA i2.5 to get it to work. [12:17:05] and i3 too! [12:18:09] True. [12:18:09] mlepinski leaves the room [12:18:45] mlepinski joins the room [12:19:15] I am surprised that Ted is at the meeting since he was more or less absent on the list nor does he express any interest in the work anymore. [12:20:40] Joe Hildebrand joins the room [12:20:42] The document already contains discussions on this subject already, Ted. [12:20:56] Everyone knows that you just want to delay the work in favor of the OMA work. [12:24:29] Slide: LIS Discovery forResidental Gateways [12:24:38] Ted Hardie joins the room [12:25:28] mlm.michael.miller leaves the room [12:25:57] Hey Hannes, I just joined the chat room; since I have little battery, it may be a short stay. But based on what I was just shown, may I just say accusing me of wanting to delay this work in favor of something else is both rude and wrong. I am not involved in any OMA work at all, and I'm not trying to push it. [12:26:16] I have read the doc, and I don't think it answers Marc's concern or my own. [12:26:29] Shall we take this to the email list, since I am about out of battery? [12:27:33] No domain with PPPoE [12:28:01] Ted Hardie leaves the room [12:30:04] I would be happy to discuss this with you, Ted. [12:30:28] We discussed this several years already. So, it shouldn't be a new discussion. [12:31:05] Telus is DHCP, sorry [12:31:17] Slide: Measurements [12:33:36] Joe Hildebrand leaves the room: Disconnected. [12:34:26] It is important for third party Internet access [12:40:13] All are equally important and should be WG items [12:40:17] zoil joins the room [12:40:53] first [12:41:11] Why would we want todo work sequentially? [12:43:01] dmeyer leaves the room [12:43:20] hum [12:43:34] Due to lag please say what you're humming on [12:43:35] Ted, I would be happy to see some constructive feedback from you on any of the GEOPRIV items. You volunteered to summarize the issues on the HELD identity subject a year ago already. Here is your mail: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg06207.html I responded and I don't recall any subsequent feedback from your side. [12:43:43] I want to hum for Deref [12:43:59] Hum for [12:44:42] What are we humming for here? deref to be first or deref to be a wg item? [12:44:44] Hannes, Ted is off-line (I think his battery died) [12:44:49] To be a WG item [12:45:08] HUM in favor of deref [12:45:09] Hum for deref [12:45:20] Hum in favor [12:45:40] Randy, I understood that. I still had to respond to his strange response. [12:45:49] thomas.stach leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [12:45:50] thomas.stach joins the room [12:46:11] Hum for Identity to be a WG item [12:46:11] Hum in favor of identity [12:46:15] Hum in favor for HELD identity [12:46:24] Can someone tell the chairs to look also at the Jabber? [12:46:37] I am relaying the hums here [12:46:55] Who was the one? [12:47:00] I didn't see [12:47:05] hum for discovery to be WG item [12:47:07] Hum in favor of RG discovery [12:47:08] Hum in favor of the residential gateway discovery! [12:47:49] hum for measurements to be WG item [12:47:53] Hum for the measurements draft ! [12:48:13] who are the 3? [12:48:26] the usuals [12:49:08] :-) [12:49:18] A typical comment by James. [12:49:27] This room is large and dark (especially when I'm killing my night vision staring at my laptop) so it's hard to see [12:50:18] Next presentation: Civic address extensions [12:50:27] Slide: draft-rosen-geopriv-prefix-00 [12:51:25] Slide: draft-rosen-geopriv-pidf-interior [12:53:30] Slide: Lots of controversy [12:54:01] martensson.jonas leaves the room [13:01:15] mlepinski leaves the room [13:02:04] I am a bit lost with the discussion. [13:02:12] Which document are we humming for? [13:02:17] That was for prefix [13:02:23] OK [13:02:29] Theo leaves the room: Computer went to sleep [13:02:44] Randall Gellens leaves the room [13:02:47] Meeting ends [13:02:54] Thanks. The audio quality was good [13:02:57] suzukisn leaves the room [13:03:31] martin.thomson leaves the room [13:03:32] HannesTschofenig leaves the room [13:03:35] JonathanLennox leaves the room [13:03:36] zoil leaves the room [13:04:34] gcaron leaves the room [13:04:35] Barbara leaves the room [13:06:35] Andy Hutton leaves the room [13:08:45] Andy Hutton joins the room [13:09:11] Andy Hutton leaves the room [13:13:33] CENTURION leaves the room [13:22:54] CENTURION joins the room [13:23:17] CENTURION leaves the room [13:24:11] thomas.stach leaves the room [13:33:42] Theo joins the room [13:34:07] Theo leaves the room [13:35:24] Joe Hildebrand joins the room [13:35:33] Joe Hildebrand leaves the room [16:01:05] Randall Gellens joins the room [17:29:58] Randall Gellens leaves the room [18:16:19] ysuzuki joins the room [18:16:29] ysuzuki leaves the room [20:22:27] Randall Gellens joins the room