Re: RE: [Sip] Location-conveyance: ISSUE #3 - multiple locations

["Hannes Tschofenig" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Keith, 

I also suggested to make use of the PIDF-LO profile document for this purpose in the past. See, for example, http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg15002.html

Ciao
Hannes

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:24:35 -0500
Von: "Winterbottom, James" <[e-mail]>
An: "Drage, Keith \\(Keith\\)" <[e-mail]>, "IETF SIP List" <[e-mail]>
Betreff: RE: [Sip] Location-conveyance: ISSUE #3 - multiple locations

> Hi Keith,
> 
> The GEOPRIV PIDF-LO profile document makes suggestions about including
> and interpreting multiple locations. This may be the right document to
> reference with regards to this topic.
> 
> Cheers
> James
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Sunday, 29 April 2007 6:00 AM
> > To: IETF SIP List
> > Subject: [Sip] Location-conveyance: ISSUE #3 - multiple locations
> > 
> > (As SIP WG chair)
> > 
> > During the review of the WGLC comments, we have identified some issues
> > where we need consensus calls on the list. These are in one call per
> > message.
> > 
> > We had a number of comments that it was not clear whether a message
> > could contain multiple locations, and if they were, what were the
> > procedures.
> > 
> > On the call we identified what we believe the way forward in this
> area,
> > which is summarised by the following statements:
> > 
> > -	location conveyance should support the delivery of multiple
> > locations;
> > 
> > -	the document will make no recommendations as to how the
> > recipient chooses
> > which location to use. This is regarded as specific to the using
> > application,
> > and therefore beyond the scope of the protocol extension;
> > 
> > -	the recipient should attempt to make use of all the locations
> > given, and
> > should only respond with a 424 response if it is unable to use any of
> > those
> > locations. This includes resolving all and any locations by reference;
> > 
> > -	as a result of the above, any 424 response is a collective
> > statement about
> > all the locations given in the request rather than any specific
> location
> > in the
> > request.
> > 
> > We will assume that this represents WG consensus unless we hear
> > otherwise from the WG in 7 calendar days from the posting of this
> > message.
> > 
> > Obviously if the WG has an alternative view, some proposal of the
> > alternative way forward and the expected impact on the text would be
> > entirely appropriate.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Keith
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


_______________________________________________
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