Re: [sipcore] draft-winterbottom-sipcore-locparam-01.txt and Liaison Statement to IETF on location source parameter

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I am ok with the draft as such, but I have a few comments, in addition to those given by Paul.

First, there are some MUSTs and MUST NOTs, without any clear justification.

For example:

"Only a fully qualified host name is valid, an IP address MUST NOT be added by an entity conforming with this specification."

"A UE MUST NOT provide a loc-src parameter value."

Second, "UE" is not an IETF term. You should use "UA". But still, I think you need to be a little more clear what exactly you mean. Because, a B2BUA also implements a "UA", but I assume you don't want to prevent it from using the mechanism?

Third, related to the first, why do you mandate the value to be a FQDN?

Fourth, I am pretty sure the security folks are going to request more text on the fact that you don't know whether the receiver of the parameter supports it or not, which means it might not be removed (and, thus, forwarded e.g., to a non-trusted network).

Regards,

Christer




From: sipcore [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jesske, Roland
Sent: 20 September 2017 07:10
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [sipcore] draft-winterbottom-sipcore-locparam-01.txt and Liaison Statement to IETF on location source parameter

Dear all,
since I did not get any comments on our draft it look for me that people are happy with the content.

So I would like to ask the group for adoption of this draft.

Best Regards

Roland

Von: sipcore [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von Jesske, Roland
Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. August 2017 10:59
An: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Betreff: [sipcore] draft-winterbottom-sipcore-locparam-01.txt and Liaison Statement to IETF on location source parameter

Dear all,
since I have uploaded the latest draft on draft-winterbottom-sipcore-locparam-01.txt and the last clarification on questions were given on 23. May I did not get any further comment.



With a reference to this draft a Liaison from ETSI ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1527/ ) is waiting for action.



The liaison from ETSI is asking on the progress of the draft for their solution on Emergency Call due to the Project of  the European Union Mandate: M493.

My question is, since we have no open questions, if we can now progress the draft.



Thank you for consideration.



Best Regards



Roland