Re: [Sip-implementors] [Sip] SIPit 20 survey summary

["Jeroen van Bemmel" <[e-mail]>]

Based on all these discussions (including the proposal to remove emergency 
related text from the draft), I can't help but wonder: is the use case for 
"location conveyance for emergency calls" important and special enough to 
warrant its own solution?

So far, it has been treated as merely a special case of location-based 
routing. But the need for it (yesterday, regulatory driven), the 
security/privacy aspects (ignore them), the required information (single 
location, no shapes e.d.) all seem vastly different from the general case. 
Link that to the observation that a header-based mechanism would be much 
easier to generate (both by UEs and gateways) and parse at routing proxies 
and PSAPs, reducing the chance at errors in situations that may cost lives 
AND speeding up implementation rates, I'd say : separate it out?

Regards,
Jeroen

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> I mis-spoke. I was actually thinking of a different solution, more
> appropriate to the SIP header model. After all, for geo, two numbers
> (long/lat) in WGS84 datum are all that matters in most circumstances,
> on occasion augmented by a third (some 'measurement accuracy'
> indication).
>
> The XMPP XML model that Juha and you refer to isn't all that much
> simpler than GEOPRIV civic or GML Point, just different, as you note.
> (Whether supporting the multitude of geometric shapes in the pdif-lo
> profile spec is truly required and where is another discussion which
> belongs elsewhere.)
>
> I don't know if by 'security' you refer to the embedded privacy
> policies; in most cases, restrictive default values would do the
> trick for those. Plus, for emergency calls, few PSAPs are going to
> observe 'do not distribute' or 'do not retain' in any event, simply
> because the law in many jurisdictions contradicts those desires.
>
> Henning
>
> On Apr 29, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
>> Hi Henning,
>>
>> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0080.html takes an interesting
>> approach by largely ignoring previous work on geolocation. It is
>> just too attractive to create your own flavor of civic and geodetic
>> location information format.
>>
>> Interestingly enough there is a full-blown solution for XMPP
>> available as well that builds on the OMA protocols. I have to
>> search for the reference, if someone cares. That one is far more
>> complex than GEOPRIV.
>>
>> If you argue for simplicity then you refer to  http://www.xmpp.org/
>> extensions/xep-0080.html.
>>
>> If you argue for functionality, different environments and
>> interworking with existing systems then you point to the OMA
>> extension.
>>
>> It's so easy. Translated to our work in GEOPRIV this would mean the
>> following: If we want to convince people to use it then we just
>> point them to the easy WLAN or enterprise case with a simple civic
>> or a simple point representation.
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>> PS: Last November I was at a conference on mobility protocols.
>> Someone gave a presentation on a new mobility protocol design. The
>> author claimed it was very simple. Indeed, it was simple -- because
>> it just didn't care about security.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors 



_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip