Re: [sipcore] composition or just indirection

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Tue, 20 July 2010 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@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 5FB4A3A6847 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 ZCDXNPdrXbqv for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EC23A6784 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2010 12:51:36 +0000
Received: from [161.44.174.142] (dhcp-161-44-174-142.cisco.com [161.44.174.142]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6KCpais023325; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:51:36 GMT
Message-ID: <4C459BD7.9050007@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:51:35 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
References: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03EB772EBB@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <C86A11BF.41D5D%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03EB7730BA@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
In-Reply-To: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03EB7730BA@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] composition or just indirection
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: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:51:22 -0000

Thomson, Martin wrote:
>  How about:
> 
> The Geolocation header identifies a PIDF document by value or 
> reference.  A Geolocation header indicates that a) this particular PIDF 
> document contains location information and b) that this location 
> information in particular may be relevant to the processing of the SIP 
> request.
> 
> This is intentionally soft, but (I believe) not too vague. 

IMO this is *too* vague.

For instance, I might want request that a call be routed *to* the phone 
closest to some geolocation. That location is also relevant to the 
processing of the request, but in an entirely different way.

	Thanks,
	Paul