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

"Elwell, John" <> Wed, 27 October 2010 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A543A67FB for <>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 06:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.616
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6PecL1eqUWS1 for <>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 06:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9AA3A6953 for <>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 06:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx12-mx ([] []) by with ESMTP id BT-MMP-2061133; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:17:56 +0200
Received: from (unknown []) by senmx12-mx (Server) with ESMTP id 0123F23F0278; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:17:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:17:55 +0200
From: "Elwell, John" <>
To: "James M. Polk" <>, "" <>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:17:53 +0200
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted, here's the changes
Thread-Index: Act1kD0o+0NNpNoSRh6SAAZ/P6L7dwARU08g
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted, here's the changes
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:16:10 -0000

I am happy to see that http and https are added as schemes in locationURI. However, looking at 4.6, I am still uncomfortable that SIP-, SIPS- and PRES-URI are recommended and but HTTP- and HTTPS-URI are not recommended (by virtue of the fact they are only MAY strength, for use when one disregards the SHOULD for SIP-, SIPS- and PRES-).

We had an earlier thread starting here:
in which questions were asked about what one must support. The text in 4.6 says nothing about what a LR must support. The implication is that it either has two support all of the 5 schemes listed for sending in a request, or it can choose which to support and reject any that it doesn't support.

In practice, as pointed out on the thread, the schemes effectively boil down to 2 mechanisms: SIP and HTTP (if we for now ignore the absoluteURI option, which effectively leaves it open ended). So perhaps it is not unreasonable to mandate support for all 5 schemes (both mechanisms) by a recipient, although it does raise the bar somewhat for recipient implementations. I recall there was some interest on the thread in limiting to a single MUST support, and some interest in that scheme being HTTP(S). I am not sure we reached consensus on this. I don't have a strong opinion, but we certainly need some text to clarify things one way or the other.

Furthermore, it is unclear which code to use in a 494 response when rejecting an unsupported scheme - presumably the top level 400, but that says nothing about why dereference failed. Even if all the named schemes were MUST support (so you would never reject these), there could be other schemes under absoluteURI that you would want to reject.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: 27 October 2010 05:32
> To:
> Subject: [sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted, here's 
> the changes
> I've submitted the next version of Location Conveyance (-04)
> 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 (involving 
> allowing one coarse and one highly accurate location in the 
> same SIP request).
> - Paul K. wanted the use-case in which a SIP intermediary inserts a 
> locationValue where one didn't exist previously, and received a 424 
> (Bad Location Information) to that inserted location, from having the 
> 424 propagate towards the UAC (as the UAC might not know what to do 
> with a 424). This is now covered in Section 4.3.
> - changed existing text to "MUST NOT" from "does not" about a 424 not 
> terminating an existing dialog (just increased the strength of this.
> - I added the 424 to the table 2 entry in which the Geolocation 
> header can be in only this response.
> - I added text stating the conditions for adding a Geolocation header 
> value to the 424, to make it clear what is and what isn't 
> allowed for this.
> - Martin wanted me to add back in the top level Geolocation-Error 
> codes 100, 200, 300 and 400, which I did in section 4.3.
> - rejected the idea that the geolocation option-tag hasn't 
> been justified.
> - Added RFCs 2616, 2818 and HELD Deref ID to the references section 
> because I added the ability to include HTTP: and HTTPS: URIs, and 
> stated if received, they should be dereferenced according to the HELD 
> Deref doc.
> - changed the Section 5 examples how Martin wanted them.
> - Stated that GEO-URIs are not appropriate for the SIP Geolocation 
> header, according to the discussion during the Maastricht 
> Geopriv meeting.
> - we changed the privacy section, and included a ref to the Geopriv 
> Arch doc, according to the agreement in Geopriv at Maastricht.
> Comments are encouraged
> We plan to request (3rd?) WGLC during the SIPCORE meeting in Beijing 
> (to give folks a sense of our plans).
> James/Brian/Jon
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list