Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion?

"Thomson, Martin" <> Mon, 26 July 2010 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200E03A6953 for <>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.312
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.714, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2vc2FRPUIsiZ for <>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 917013A68DA for <>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]:56131 "EHLO") by with ESMTP id S28669596Ab0GZOkc (ORCPT <rfc822;>); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:40:32 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:34:00 -0500
Received: from ([fe80::9d82:a492:85e3:a293]) by ([fe80::58c3:2447:f977:57c3%10]) with mapi; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:33:57 +0800
From: "Thomson, Martin" <>
To: "Richard L. Barnes" <>, Alexander Mayrhofer <>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:36:09 +0800
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion?
Thread-Index: AcsszrYU/50MmBiaQFyd96B+AGG/cQAARJeQ
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03EB773651SISPE7MB1comm_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BCN: Meridius 1000 Version 3.4 on
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion?
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: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:40:27 -0000

That was precisely the same conclusion that I came to.  It’s not especially flexible and we enter the realm of policy definition when we do so.  I advise caution.

From: Richard L. Barnes []
Sent: Monday, 26 July 2010 4:28 PM
To: Alexander Mayrhofer
Cc: Thomson, Martin;
Subject: Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion?

I was afraid that Alex would notice :)

The concern here is about privacy, since the geo URI scheme doesn't include GEOPRIV-like rules.  In fact, the privacy part of RFC 5870 has the following text:
However, if a 'geo' URI is used in a context where it identifies the location of a Target, it becomes part of a Location Object and is therefore subject to GEOPRIV rules. Therefore, when 'geo' URIs are put into such contexts, the privacy requirements of RFC 3693 MUST be met.

So in order to use a geo URI in SIP, we would need to do something about privacy rules.  The only easy approach that occurs to me is to specify fixed rules that come along with putting a GEO URI in a Geolocation header.  Suggested text:
Including a "geo:" URI in a Geolocation header associates that location with the entity that originated the SIP message, making it in effect a Location Object in the terms of RFC 3693. In particular, there is a need for such location objects to have privacy rules that accompany the object.  A "geo:" URI in a Geolocation header is assigned a default set of privacy rules, equivalent to the default rules in RFC 4119:
  o retransmission-allowed: false
  o retention-expires: 24 hours from time of transmission
  o ruleset-reference: null
  o note-well: null

On Jul 26, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:

I missed the conclusions regarding geo URI.  I got the bit
where we decided that we needed to have _some_ text, but I'm
not sure what we decided what the text might look like.

Adding "geo:" to SIP Location Conveyance was actually one of the first
applications that came to my mind when i started the draft. I'm more
than happy to help with the text - i'm in Maastricht for the whole week
for face to face discussions.

sipcore mailing list<>