Re: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted, here's the changes

<hannu.hietalahti@nokia.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 05:06 UTC

Return-Path: <hannu.hietalahti@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104DE3A697A for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:06:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.724
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cCwVbY5zpIp7 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:06:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-mx06.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5CB63A6980 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id oA856G79010171; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:06:21 +0200
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.23]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:06:12 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:06:07 +0200
Received: from NOK-EUMSG-06.mgdnok.nokia.com ([94.245.81.109]) by nok-am1mhub-04.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) with mapi; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 06:06:07 +0100
From: <hannu.hietalahti@nokia.com>
To: <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>, <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>, <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, <rbarnes@bbn.com>, <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 06:06:04 +0100
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted, here's the changes
Thread-Index: Act2mlVdTb0CvQzFTY2pDhKiRuhu2gAAtZtwAMcwGpAAFNySEACOdTlgABbnWwAABXISYACLHd3LAAJ3WTAABNZXQA==
Message-ID: <5BAF85033CB5F3439C4DE153165522B1109FEF8CAD@NOK-EUMSG-06.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA02357AD02C@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <C8FD749C.47D22%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA02357AD53B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA02357AD53B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2010 05:06:07.0841 (UTC) FILETIME=[A6FC5D10:01CB7F02]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted, here's the changes
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 05:06:22 -0000

John,

I agree, but I am curious to what kind of application you have in mind to use the first/last/middle location object, please?

BR,
Hannu Hietalahti
3GPP TSG CT Chairman
tel: +358 40 5021724
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Elwell, John [mailto:john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com] 
>Sent: 08 November, 2010 06:55
>To: Peterson, Jon; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Hietalahti Hannu 
>(Nokia-CIC/Oulu); rbarnes@bbn.com; jmpolk@cisco.com
>Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted, 
>here's the changes
>
>The only normative thing I was suggesting we add was to do 
>with ordering, so that if there is >1 location present, the 
>first is the one from nearest the source of the request. I 
>don't see what harm that would do, and it could help in some 
>circumstances.
>
>John 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peterson, Jon [mailto:jon.peterson@neustar.biz] 
>> Sent: 08 November 2010 01:34
>> To: Elwell, John; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); 
>> hannu.hietalahti@nokia.com; rbarnes@bbn.com; jmpolk@cisco.com
>> Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted, 
>> here's the changes
>> 
>> 
>> I don't think the draft can do anything more helpful than say 
>> you shouldn't include multiple location objects because they 
>> are confusing, and if you do permit multiple location 
>> objects, do so only in an environment where the inserter and 
>> recipient share some agreement about their meaning and 
>> interpretation (a slight expansion of "you break it you 
>> bought it," there). I don't think it will be a useful or 
>> successful exercise for us to try to concretize that in a standard.
>> 
>> Jon Peterson
>> NeuStar, Inc.
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/5/10 12:22 AM, "Elwell, John" 
>> <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 	Yes, I agree that replacing an enterprise-provided 
>> location is very bad. The problem with adding locations to 
>> locations already present is how the PSAP chooses between 2 
>> or even 3 locations. From my reading of the draft, we don't 
>> have any normative statement on the order in which locations 
>> are placed in the header. If we had a rule that the first 
>> locationValue within a single or multiple Geolocation header 
>> fields is nearest to the source of the request, and so on, it 
>> might help. Then it would be clear that the service 
>> provider-provided location would be the least reliable, but 
>> it would still be there, e.g., for use if the other locations 
>> are bogus.
>> 	
>> 	John
>> 	
>> 	> -----Original Message-----
>> 	> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) 
>> [mailto:keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com]
>> 	> Sent: 05 November 2010 04:37
>> 	> To: Elwell, John; hannu.hietalahti@nokia.com;
>> 	> rbarnes@bbn.com; jmpolk@cisco.com
>> 	> Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
>> 	> Subject: RE: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted,
>> 	> here's the changes
>> 	>
>> 	> Exactly, that is why I am saying you need multiples.
>> 	>
>> 	> Otherwise the scenario is that the PBX puts one in, and the
>> 	> public network then replaces it because it says the regulator
>> 	> tells the network to always provide a location. At least with
>> 	> my approach, all the locations are there, and the PSAP then
>> 	> sorts it out.
>> 	>
>> 	> Keith
>> 	>
>> 	> > -----Original Message-----
>> 	> > From: Elwell, John 
>> [mailto:john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com]
>> 	> > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:48 PM
>> 	> > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); hannu.hietalahti@nokia.com;
>> 	> > rbarnes@bbn.com; jmpolk@cisco.com
>> 	> > Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
>> 	> > Subject: RE: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted,
>> 	> > here's the changes
>> 	> >
>> 	> > Keith,
>> 	> >
>> 	> > Be very careful with this sort of approach. The trend is
>> 	> > towards fewer SIP-PBXs and fewer "SIP trunks" serving an
>> 	> > enterprise, with often a single SIP-PBX and a single entry
>> 	> > into the SIP Service Provider for a whole country or even
>> 	> > multiple countries. Even for the single country case, the
>> 	> > service provider network is unlikely to have a clue as to
>> 	> > where, in the country, the caller might be located (or even
>> 	> > where the PBX is located if there are two geographically
>> 	> > separate servers). Caller ID isn't likely to help either,
>> 	> > since users can move around within the enterprise network.
>> 	> >
>> 	> > John
>> 	> >
>> 	> > > -----Original Message-----
>> 	> > > From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org
>> 	> > > [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of DRAGE,
>> 	> Keith (Keith)
>> 	> > > Sent: 01 November 2010 23:04
>> 	> > > To: hannu.hietalahti@nokia.com; rbarnes@bbn.com; 
>> jmpolk@cisco.com
>> 	> > > Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
>> 	> > > Subject: Re: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted,
>> 	> > here's the
>> 	> > > changes
>> 	> > >
>> 	> > > If in 3GPP we look at subscription based business trunking
>> 	> > > arrangement.
>> 	> > >
>> 	> > > The end terminal includes one location.
>> 	> > >
>> 	> > > The enterprise network supporting the UE adds its own
>> 	> view of where
>> 	> > > the UE is.
>> 	> > >
>> 	> > > The public network adds its own view of the location.
>> 	> > >
>> 	> > > That makes three.
>> 	> > >
>> 	> > > regards
>> 	> > >
>> 	> > > Keith
>> 	> > >
>> 	> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> 	> > > > From: hannu.hietalahti@nokia.com
>> 	> > > [mailto:hannu.hietalahti@nokia.com]
>> 	> > > > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:46 AM
>> 	> > > > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); rbarnes@bbn.com; 
>> jmpolk@cisco.com
>> 	> > > > Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
>> 	> > > > Subject: RE: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 
>> submitted,
>> 	> > here's the
>> 	> > > > changes
>> 	> > > >
>> 	> > > > Hi Keith,
>> 	> > > >
>> 	> > > > yes, I remember you made this comment at Maastricht
>> 	> > already, and I
>> 	> > > > agree with you that from 3GPP viewpoint we need encoding
>> 	> > that allows
>> 	> > > > *more than one* piece of location information.
>> 	> > > >
>> 	> > > > In 3GPP case those would be typically the one 
>> obtained from the
>> 	> > > > terminal and the one added by the serving network if it
>> 	> thinks it
>> 	> > > > knows better.
>> 	> > > >
>> 	> > > > But my imagination runs out after these two. Are you
>> 	> > saying we need
>> 	> > > > more than 2?
>> 	> > > >
>> 	> > > > BR,
>> 	> > > > Hannu Hietalahti
>> 	> > > > 3GPP TSG CT Chairman
>> 	> > > > tel: +358 40 5021724
>> 	> > > > 
>> 	> > > >
>> 	> > > > >-----Original Message-----
>> 	> > > > >From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org
>> 	> > > > >[mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
>> ext DRAGE,
>> 	> > > > Keith (Keith)
>> 	> > > > >Sent: 28 October, 2010 16:01
>> 	> > > > >To: Richard L. Barnes; James M. Polk
>> 	> > > > >Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
>> 	> > > > >Subject: Re: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 
>> submitted,
>> 	> > > here's the
>> 	> > > > >changes
>> 	> > > > >
>> 	> > > > >To be more specific - we had a document that 
>> allowed multiple
>> 	> > > > >locations. It was reduced to one without any 
>> decision in
>> 	> > > > that direction
>> 	> > > > >being made by the working group. It needs to go back
>> 	> to multiple
>> 	> > > > >values.
>> 	> > > > >
>> 	> > > > >In my view there are clear use cases where 
>> multiple values are
>> 	> > > > >required.
>> 	> > > > >
>> 	> > > > >regards
>> 	> > > > >
>> 	> > > > >Keith
>> 	> > > > >
>> 	> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
>> 	> > > > >> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org
>> 	> > > > >> [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Richard
>> 	> > L. Barnes
>> 	> > > > >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:19 PM
>> 	> > > > >> To: James M. Polk
>> 	> > > > >> Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
>> 	> > > > >> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Location Conveyance 
>> -04 submitted,
>> 	> > > > here's the
>> 	> > > > >> changes
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> > > > >> >> I'm pretty comfortable with the document 
>> at this point,
>> 	> > > > >> but have just
>> 	> > > > >> >> one minor question: Why are you still 
>> limiting the number
>> 	> > > > >> of location
>> 	> > > > >> >> values?  Why are three values harmful, 
>> but not two?  This
>> 	> > > > >> still seems
>> 	> > > > >> >> like pointless ABNF legislation.
>> 	> > > > >> >
>> 	> > > > >> > we only added the ability to have a second 
>> locationValue
>> 	> > > > >because of
>> 	> > > > >> > your rough-loc ID. Before that, we were firm in not
>> 	> > > > >> allowing more than
>> 	> > > > >> > one.  Given that choice, which do you like?
>> 	> > > > >> >
>> 	> > > > >> > Remember, this was Jon's proposal in 
>> SIPCORE in Anaheim,
>> 	> > > > which it
>> 	> > > > >> > seemed everyone and their brother was agreeable
>> 	> with, so ...
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> > > > >> As I recall, the proposal was to just remove 
>> the limit on
>> 	> > > > >the number
>> 	> > > > >> of locations values, not to bump it up by one.  From
>> 	> > the minutes:
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> > > > >> "Restore Geolocation header that has 
>> multiple URIs, even
>> 	> > > though we
>> 	> > > > >> would not recommend it. Entities inserting 
>> persence are
>> 	> > > > responsbile
>> 	> > > > >> for any resulting errors. The header parameters
>> 	> > > > distinguishing URIs
>> 	> > > > >> would not be added back in."
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> > > > >> At least in my mind, multiple != 2.
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> > > > >> --Richard
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> > > > >> > james
>> 	> > > > >> >
>> 	> > > > >> >
>> 	> > > > >> >> --Richard
>> 	> > > > >> >>
>> 	> > > > >> >>
>> 	> > > > >> >>
>> 	> > > > >> >>
>> 	> > > > >> >> On Oct 27, 2010, at 12:32 AM, James M. Polk wrote:
>> 	> > > > >> >>
>> 	> > > > >> >>> SIPCORE
>> 	> > > > >> >>>
>> 	> > > > >> >>> I've submitted the next version of Location
>> 	> > Conveyance (-04)
>> 	> > > > >> >>>
>> 	> > > > >>
>> 	> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipcore-locatio
>> 	> > > > >> n-conveyance-04.txt
>> 	> > > > >> >>> and I believe this version has addressed 
>> each open
>> 	> > > > item from the
>> 	> > > > >> >>> mailing list, as well as what was 
>> discussed and agreed
>> 	> > > > to in the
>> 	> > > > >> >>> Maastricht meeting.
>> 	> > > > >> >>>
>> 	> > > > >> >>> I have attempted to identify each open issue with
>> 	> > > the specific
>> 	> > > > >> >>> resolution here (in no particular order):
>> 	> > > > >> >>>
>> 	> > > > >> >>> - Martin wanted Section 3 to be broken up into
>> 	> > > > subsections, each
>> 	> > > > >> >>> revolving around each of the 4 diagrams. I have
>> 	> done this.
>> 	> > > > >> >>>
>> 	> > > > >> >>> - allowed a maximum of two (up from one)
>> 	> > > locationValues to be
>> 	> > > > >> >>> present in the Geolocation header value. 
>> The text however
>> 	> > > > >> recommends
>> 	> > > > >> >>> against inserting a second value. This 
>> was agreed to in
>> 	> > > > >> Maastricht.
>> 	> > > > >> >>>
>> 	> > > > >> >>> - Because we're allowing a max of two 
>> locationValues,
>> 	> > > > >> they can be in
>> 	> > > > >> >>> separate Geolocation headers in the SIP request.
>> 	> > > This scenario
>> 	> > > > >> >>> necessitates bring a previous version's 
>> paragraph in
>> 	> > > > >> stating that a
>> 	> > > > >> >>> 'SIP intermediary MUST inspect all 
>> instances of each
>> 	> > > > Geolocation
>> 	> > > > >> >>> header before considering the routing-allowed
>> 	> > > parameter to be
>> 	> > > > >> >>> considered =yes', to ensure there isn't 
>> a conflict in
>> 	> > > > the 'other'
>> 	> > > > >> >>> Geolocation header that states the policy is =no.
>> 	> > > > >> >>>
>> 	> > > > >> >>> - with the ability to add a second 
>> locationValue, it is
>> 	> > > > >> necessary to
>> 	> > > > >> >>> warn against doing this (confusion at the LRs).
>> 	> > > > >> >>>
>> 	> > > > >> >>> - Added the "you break it you bought it"
>> 	> philosophy to SIP
>> 	> > > > >> >>> intermediaries that choose to insert a 
>> second location
>> 	> > > > where one
>> 	> > > > >> >>> already existed, especially for 
>> inserting a location
>> 	> > > > URI in the
>> 	> > > > >> >>> downstream SIP request.
>> 	> > > > >> >>>
>> 	> > > > >> >>> - Fixed the ABNF to handle zero, one or two (but
>> 	> no more)
>> 	> > > > >> >>> locationValues according to the 
>> agreement in Maastricht.
>> 	> > > > >> There is a
>> 	> > > > >> >>> one-off use case which won't be in play 
>> very often, but
>> 	> > > > >> is a WG item
>> 	> > > > >> >>> in ECRIT that several wanted to allow 
>> the possibility for
>> 	> > > > >> (inv
>> 	
>> 
>>