Subject: [Ecrit] draft-polk-dhc-ecrit-lost-server-uri-00.txt

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:55:06 +0200

Hi all, 

James submitted a new draft:

            A Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for
         Requesting and Receiving a Uniform Resource Identifier
           for a Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Server

Abstract

   This document defines a new Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 
   (DHC) Option to deliver a Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) 
   Protocol URI to a client.  This SIP(S)-URI will be become the 
   destination URI in any call set-up message to a Public Safety 
   Answering Point (PSAP) in times of an emergency.

http://www.ietf-ecrit.org/cache/draft-polk-dhc-ecrit-lost-server-uri-00.
txt

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:50:43 -0500

It seems that the actual link to this document is:

txt.txt

________________________________

From: Tschofenig, Hannes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, 19 June 2006 5:55 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ecrit] draft-polk-dhc-ecrit-lost-server-uri-00.txt

Hi all, 

Abstract 

http://www.ietf-ecrit.org/cache/draft-polk-dhc-ecrit-lost-server-uri-00.
txt
<http://www.ietf-ecrit.org/cache/draft-polk-dhc-ecrit-lost-server-uri-00
.txt>  

Ciao 
Hannes 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:47:26 -0700

At 5:50 PM -0500 6/19/06, Winterbottom, James wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>	boundary="--=_NextPart_ST_17_50_12_Monday_June_19_2006_22526"
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>
><http://www.ietf-ecrit.org/cache/draft-polk-dhc-ecrit-lost-server-uri-00.txt.txt>http://www.ietf-ecrit.org/cache/draft-polk-dhc-ecrit-lost-server-uri-00.txt.txt
> 
> 

Do you think the LoST protocol draft should define a URI scheme, then, or
should we do that in an independent draft?
				Ted

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:50:49 -0500

I think that the thread would be easier to follow if it were in the LoST
protocol draft.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Hardie [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 June 2006 9:47 AM
> To: Winterbottom, James; Tschofenig, Hannes; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Ecrit] draft-polk-dhc-ecrit-lost-server-uri-00.txt
> 
><http://www.ietf-ecrit.org/cache/draft-polk-dhc-ecrit-lost-server-uri-
> 00.txt.txt>http://www.ietf-ecrit.org/cache/draft-polk-dhc-ecrit-lost-
> server-uri-00.txt.txt
> >
> >
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:05:15 -0500

>I think that the thread would be easier to follow if it were in the LoST

James - I do not understand this comment. Can you rephrase it please?

> ><http://www.ietf-ecrit.org/cache/draft-polk-dhc-ecrit-lost-server-uri->

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:14:33 -0500

Searching a single document for the things you are looking for is much
easier than having to go searching through multiple documents. Unless
you see that the new URI scheme is going to be massive, I suggest
putting it in the same document as the LoST specification.

On a separate note, for the DHCP draft, are you planning on having a
section for IPv6 DHC URI discovery?

Cheers
James

> From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2006 4:05 PM
> To: Winterbottom, James; Ted Hardie; Tschofenig, Hannes;
[email-masked]
> > > server-uri-00.txt.txt
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you think the LoST protocol draft should define a URI scheme,
then,
> >or
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------------------
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------------------

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:24:04 -0500

>putting it in the same document as the LoST specification.

That belongs in the LoST doc, and this doc will refer to that.

>section for IPv6 DHC URI discovery?

I can.