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

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

At 07:01 AM 10/27/2010, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>Thanks a lot for revising this document.
>
>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 ...

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-location-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 (involving
>>allowing one coarse and one highly accurate location in the same SIP
>>request).
>>
>>- Paul K. wanted the use-case in which a SIP intermediary inserts a
>>locationValue where one didn't exist previously, and received a 424
>>(Bad Location Information) to that inserted location, from having
>>the 424 propagate towards the UAC (as the UAC might not know what to
>>do with a 424). This is now covered in Section 4.3.
>>
>>- changed existing text to "MUST NOT" from "does not" about a 424
>>not terminating an existing dialog (just increased the strength of
>>this.
>>
>>- I added the 424 to the table 2 entry in which the Geolocation
>>header can be in only this response.
>>
>>- I added text stating the conditions for adding a Geolocation
>>header value to the 424, to make it clear what is and what isn't
>>allowed for this.
>>
>>- Martin wanted me to add back in the top level Geolocation-Error
>>codes 100, 200, 300 and 400, which I did in section 4.3.
>>
>>- rejected the idea that the geolocation option-tag hasn't been
>>justified.
>>
>>- Added RFCs 2616, 2818 and HELD Deref ID to the references section
>>because I added the ability to include HTTP: and HTTPS: URIs, and
>>stated if received, they should be dereferenced according to the
>>HELD Deref doc.
>>
>>- changed the Section 5 examples how Martin wanted them.
>>
>>- Stated that GEO-URIs are not appropriate for the SIP Geolocation
>>header, according to the discussion during the Maastricht Geopriv
>>meeting.
>>
>>- we changed the privacy section, and included a ref to the Geopriv
>>Arch doc, according to the agreement in Geopriv at Maastricht.
>>
>>
>>Comments are encouraged
>>
>>We plan to request (3rd?) WGLC during the SIPCORE meeting in Beijing
>>(to give folks a sense of our plans).
>>
>>James/Brian/Jon
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>sipcore mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore