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

["Elwell, John" <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: 08 November 2010 01:34
> To: Elwell, John; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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" 
> <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]]
> 	> Sent: 05 November 2010 04:37
> 	> To: Elwell, John; [e-mail];
> 	> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 	> Cc: [e-mail]
> 	> 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:[e-mail]]
> 	> > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:48 PM
> 	> > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); [e-mail];
> 	> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 	> > Cc: [e-mail]
> 	> > 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: [e-mail]
> 	> > > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of DRAGE,
> 	> Keith (Keith)
> 	> > > Sent: 01 November 2010 23:04
> 	> > > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> 	> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> 	> > > 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: [e-mail]
> 	> > > [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 	> > > > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:46 AM
> 	> > > > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> 	> > > > Cc: [e-mail]
> 	> > > > 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: [phone]
> 	> > > > 
> 	> > > >
> 	> > > > >-----Original Message-----
> 	> > > > >From: [e-mail]
> 	> > > > >[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
> ext DRAGE,
> 	> > > > Keith (Keith)
> 	> > > > >Sent: 28 October, 2010 16:01
> 	> > > > >To: Richard L. Barnes; James M. Polk
> 	> > > > >Cc: [e-mail]
> 	> > > > >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: [e-mail]
> 	> > > > >> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
> Of Richard
> 	> > L. Barnes
> 	> > > > >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:19 PM
> 	> > > > >> To: James M. Polk
> 	> > > > >> Cc: [e-mail]
> 	> > > > >> 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
> 	
> 
>