Subject: [Ecrit] [issue4] Service URN in Response Message

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:00:17 +0000

Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]> added the comment:

TENTATIVE SUMMARY:

I think the long discussion did not lead to a conclusion. 
Here is the current discussion status: 

* Either civic OR geospatial in a LoST query 

Marc, Henning, Shida

* Both civic AND geospatial possible in a LoST query 

Roger, Martin, Andy, 

These folks don't seem to take a position:

James W., John Hearty, Jean-Francois, Brian

Looks like a hard issue to resolve. If someone has suggestions how we can bring 
a few facts into the discussion.

__________________________________________________
LoST Issue Tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.tschofenig.priv.at:8080/lost/issue4>
__________________________________________________

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

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 19:02:16 -0500

Hi Hannes,

My position is that the send everything you have to the Lost Server and
let it decide which one to use.

Sorry for not being clear

Cheers
James 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2006 7:00 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ecrit] [issue4] Service URN in Response Message
> 
> 
> Looks like a hard issue to resolve. If someone has suggestions how we
can
> bring

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 01:36:40 -0400

Ask som psap folks what they think of that idea.

The server, for which the psap ( or the local emergency authority) is 
ultimately responsible for the data and the behavior of the server.  
They pretty consistantly tell me they have no way to make decisions like 
this.

Were you thinking the RFC would specify what the server does in that 
case?  If it's configuration and policy, then I think there is no chance 
the operator of the server will accept that responsibility, because they 
don't have any knowledge to guide the choice.

Brian