[sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance ?
Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Wed, 13 July 2011 10:20 UTC
Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1289B21F8877 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ecdjqPc1iG4e for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 30FF721F886C for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Jul 2011 10:20:13 -0000
Received: from letku214.adsl.netsonic.fi (EHLO [10.0.0.6]) [194.29.195.214] by mail.gmx.net (mp027) with SMTP; 13 Jul 2011 12:20:13 +0200
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19+7xtgoJp+W88JAJhk+pf+JsHXEu1awWHXZISKPV At2QpjoiAoUMUG
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:20:12 +0300
Message-Id: <BFF49F39-2884-41ED-8905-57D4A8FFDAD2@gmx.net>
To: "SIPCORE (Session Initiation Protocol Core) WG" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance ?
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:20:26 -0000
Hi guys, what is the status of draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance? It is fairly close to completion, I guess. I did not see a new version submitted for this submission deadline and there are still a few remarks from the IESG to address, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance/ballot/ I read through the document and here are my review comments: 1. I suggest to delete this sentence: "SIP acts as a Using Protocol of location information, as defined in RFC 3693." 2. this sentence is difficult to parse (at least for me) - maybe restructuring would help. " In order to convey location information, this document specifies three new SIP header fields, Geolocation, Geolocation-Routing and Geolocation-Error, which carry a reference to a Location Object (LO), grant permission to route a SIP request based on the location-value and provide error notifications specific to location errors respectively. " 3. I suggest to have a brief look at the Geopriv Arch document http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc6280.txt and then to see what modifications are need for this paragraph from the draft: " A Target is an entity whose location is being conveyed, per RFC 3693 . Thus, a Target could be a SIP user agent (UA), some other IP device (a router or a PC) that does not have a SIP stack, a non-IP device (a person or a black phone) or even a non-communications device (a building or store front). In no way does this document assume that the SIP user agent client which sends a request containing a location object is necessarily the Target. The location of a Target conveyed within SIP typically corresponds to that of a device controlled by the Target, for example, a mobile phone, but such devices can be separated from their owners, and moreover, in some cases the user agent may not know its own location. " 4. Why aren't GEO URIs not appropriate? GEO-URIs [RFC5870] are not appropriate for usage in the SIP 5. What does this really mean? Other URI schemas used in the location URI MUST be reviewed against the RFC 3693 [RFC3693] criteria for a Using Protocol. 6. In what cases are intermediaries allowed to modify or delete locationValues? SIP intermediaries SHOULD NOT modify or delete any existing locationValue(s). 7. Editorial: The RFC Editor will insist on this. Instead of "section X" write "Section X". 8. The Geopriv Privacy Considerations are more or less nonsense. I suggest to reference the Geopriv Architecture doc instead of RFC3693. While the text in the section says: " [ID-GEO-ARCH] updates the guidance in RFC3693 to include subsequently-introduced entities and concepts in the geolocation architecture. " It does not even provide a brief summary of the privacy threat model or the proposed countermeasures. I would omit it and instead point to the Geopriv architecture document. Ciao Hannes
- [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance ? Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveya… Adam Roach
- Re: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveya… Hannes Tschofenig