Re: [sipcore] location conveyance looks good

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Wed, 27 October 2010 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560093A6844 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p6pF7Lixk0LT for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C66A3A6828 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,247,1286150400"; d="scan'208";a="276721575"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2010 18:35:53 +0000
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8715.cisco.com [10.99.80.22]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9RIZrDD021639; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:35:53 GMT
Message-Id: <201010271835.o9RIZrDD021639@sj-core-3.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:35:52 -0500
To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>, "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>, "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F31EB10B@SISPE7MB1.comms cope.com>
References: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F31EAF78@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <201010270429.o9R4TuCM027015@sj-core-2.cisco.com> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F31EB10B@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] location conveyance looks good
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 27 Oct 2010 18:34:04 -0000

At 12:31 AM 10/27/2010, Thomson, Martin wrote:
>On 2010-10-27 at 15:29:55, James M. Polk wrote:
> > >and the serial nature Figure 2 is a little mysterious to me
> >
> > if I send you a SIP request with a location URI, you need to be able
> > to dereference it (or at least try) before you accept the SIP
> > request. I know it'll add a bit of time to the 200 OK, but that will
> > allow confirmation of location delievery - which isn't the location
> > URI, but the location value itself (i.e., the PIDF-LO). If the
> > dereference fails after you've sent me a 200 OK, how can you possibly
> > tell me that there was something wrong with my delivery of location to
> > you?
>
>I can live with that.  It all depends on whether the 200 is 
>contingent on being able to dereference.  I imagine that if this is 
>just a MESSAGE and the location isn't actually needed to process the 
>request, you could send the 200 beforehand, but then you probably 
>don't need the Geolocation header either.

I'm thinking that's all true

james