Re: [sipcore] Summary: number of location headers

<> Thu, 11 November 2010 05:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351FB3A69CD for <>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:46:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.69
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.69 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YvyJXcG7Q9AT for <>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:45:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11DAD3A69CA for <>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:45:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id oAB5jmEA002124; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:46:22 +0200
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:46:07 +0200
Received: from ([]) by over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:46:01 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:46:00 +0100
From: <>
To: <>, <>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:45:57 +0100
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Summary: number of location headers
Thread-Index: Act/7jFRahayayQQR0eYiLTIMKBrMwBclPeA
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
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2010 05:46:01.0826 (UTC) FILETIME=[B926BC20:01CB8163]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Summary: number of location headers
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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 05:46:01 -0000

Thanks for summarising, Adam,

being one of those requesting this change I of course support it, but could we please also re-word the warning against adding multiple locations from "SHOULD NOT" to giving a warning that adding more location objects does not guarantee better accuracy and any possible conflict resolution is left for the receiver of this information.

The issue is real and I am not arguing to remove this warning. But in case of emergency calls just strongly recommending against multiple location objects with "SHOULD NOT" does not help much if both the terminal and the network *have to* insert their best understanding of the user's location.

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

>-----Original Message-----
>[] On Behalf Of ext Adam Roach 
>- SIPCORE Chair
>Sent: 09 November, 2010 11:10
>To: SIPCORE (Session Initiation Protocol Core) WG
>Subject: [sipcore] Summary: number of location headers
>[as chair]
>I just wanted to summarize where it looks like the discussion ended up 
>on whether we constrain the number of location header fields in a SIP 
>message. From my review of the discussion, I believe that four people 
>have weighed in on the topic to voice support for an arbitrary 
>number of 
>location headers (albeit with a implementation warning that 
>doing so is 
>not advisable):
>Martin Thompson: 
>Richard Barnes: 
>Keith Drage: 
>Hannu Hietalahti: 
>And two people have agreed to go along with that direction, with 
>expressed reservations:
>Jon Peterson: 
>James Polk: 
>If any other working group participants have comments on this topic, 
>they are encouraged to make them quickly. Lacking any further 
>input, the 
>authors will be instructed to revise the document to allow an 
>number of location header fields, with an accompanying warning that 
>doing so is not recommended.
>sipcore mailing list