Re: [sipcore] draft-winterbottom-sipcore-locparam-01.txt and Liaison Statement to IETF on location source parameter

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>> Also to address Pauls comment complete. I would propose then the following:
>> 
>> 
>>            location-source = "loc-src=" (hostname / other-loc-src)
>>            hostname = <defined in RFC3261>
>>            other-loc-src = token
>> 
>>                           Figure 1: Location Source
>
>I'll be ok with this if you also include some text about the intent of other-loc-src. Is it >intended only as a hook for future extension - requiring another document to define that >usage? What should a recipient do if they receive this with something matching other-loc->src and don't understand that usage?

As I indicated in my comments, I'd like to see some justification on why we mandate a FQDN to begin with.

Regards,

Christer



>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Asveren, Tolga [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 22. September 2017 08:24
>> An: Jesske, Roland <[e-mail]>; Paul Kyzivat 
>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Cc: James Winterbottom <[e-mail]>
>> Betreff: RE: [sipcore] draft-winterbottom-sipcore-locparam-01.txt and 
>> Liaison Statement to IETF on location source parameter
>>
>> I would prefer to keep the existing syntax. Not that I have an 
>> immediate use case at hand but you never know what future would 
>> bring. And it would be a pity to have an extension draft just for something like this.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tolga
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sipcore [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jesske, 
>> Roland
>> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 1:30 AM
>> To: Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Cc: James Winterbottom <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [sipcore] draft-winterbottom-sipcore-locparam-01.txt and 
>> Liaison Statement to IETF on location source parameter
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>> Thank you for your comment.
>> The addition of other-loc-src was discussed in the past and was added 
>> due to some requests not to restrict this parameter to a hostname.
>> ETSI does only needs a hostname.
>>
>> So I have nothing against to change it as you have proposed it.
>> So If other people would like to keep this please speak up.
>>
>> Thank you and Best Regards
>>
>> Roland
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: sipcore [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von Paul 
>>> Kyzivat
>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. September 2017 21:12
>>> An: [e-mail]
>>> Betreff: Re: [sipcore] draft-winterbottom-sipcore-locparam-01.txt 
>>> and Liaison Statement to IETF on location source parameter
>>>
>>> I'm ok with adopting this.
>>>
>>> A minor point on the content:
>>>
>>> The syntax of the new parameter is defined as:
>>>
>>>             location-source = "loc-src=" (host / other-loc-src)
>>>             other-loc-src = token
>>>
>>> But there is no definition of 'host'. I think the definition you are 
>>> intending is actually 'hostname' as defined in 3261.
>>>
>>> Also, if "Only a fully qualified host name is valid" then what is 
>>> the point of 'other-loc-src'?
>>>
>>> So I would suggest:
>>>
>>>             location-source = "loc-src=" hostname
>>>             hostname = <defined in RFC3261>
>>>
>>> 	Thanks,
>>> 	Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/20/17 1:09 AM, Jesske, Roland wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> since I did not get any comments on our draft it look for me that 
>>>> people are happy with the content.
>>>>
>>>> So I would like to ask the group for adoption of this draft.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>>
>>>> Roland
>>>>
>>>> *Von:*sipcore [mailto:[e-mail]] *Im Auftrag von 
>>>> *Jesske, Roland
>>>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 29. August 2017 10:59
>>>> *An:* [e-mail]
>>>> *Betreff:* [sipcore] draft-winterbottom-sipcore-locparam-01.txt and 
>>>> Liaison Statement to IETF on location source parameter
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> since I have uploaded the latest draft on 
>>>> draft-winterbottom-sipcore-locparam-01.txt and the last 
>>>> clarification on questions were given on 23. May I did not get any 
>>>> further
>> comment.
>>>>
>>>> With a reference to this draft a Liaison from ETSI ( 
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1527/ ) is waiting for action.
>>>>
>>>> The liaison from ETSI is asking on the progress of the draft for 
>>>> their solution on Emergency Call due to the Project of  the 
>>>> European Union
>>>> Mandate: M493.
>>>>
>>>> My question is, since we have no open questions, if we can now 
>>>> progress the draft.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for consideration.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>>
>>>> Roland
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sipcore mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sipcore mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sipcore mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
sipcore mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore