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

["Asveren, Tolga" <[e-mail]>]

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