Subject: RE: [Simple] comments on rpids-01 - face-to-face

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:24:31 -0500

> 
> It's both left over and an attempt to finally reach consensus on this. I 
> think having a means to indicate "face-to-face" is useful. I don't know 
> if there is a better way of indicating that, given that we've ruled out 
> creating a new URI schema for the walk-to-office-and-knock protocol. 
> There are other cases where a tuple might not have a contact (geoloc has 
> been mentioned), so I agree that this definition is not sufficient. I 
> welcome other suggestions.
> 

In this case, I'd personally prefer an explicit indicator for 'available for
face-to-face' - I don't think this is something that should be derived
implicitly from the absence of a network-bound means of communications. Off
the top of my head, I think this should be deferred to the capability work
that had already been broken out of RPIDS (which seems to get more into the
"how"s of communication).

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc. 

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