IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] location-conveyance-03 just submitted

"Winterbottom, James" <James.Winterbottom@andrew.com> Thu, 15 July 2010 23:39 UTC

Return-Path: <James.Winterbottom@andrew.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 960473A6982 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6]
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 RYAROqAkjrgd for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from csmailgw2.commscope.com (csmailgw2.commscope.com [198.135.207.242]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FEBB3A67E5 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.86.20.102] ([10.86.20.102]:928 "EHLO ACDCE7HC1.commscope.com") by csmailgw2.commscope.com with ESMTP id S337050Ab0GOXjZ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT <rfc822; sipcore@ietf.org>); Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:39:25 -0500
Received: from SISPE7HC2.commscope.com (10.97.4.13) by ACDCE7HC1.commscope.com (10.86.20.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:39:25 -0500
Received: from SISPE7MB1.commscope.com ([fe80::9d82:a492:85e3:a293]) by SISPE7HC2.commscope.com ([fe80::58c3:2447:f977:57c3%10]) with mapi; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:39:22 +0800
From: "Winterbottom, James" <James.Winterbottom@andrew.com>
To: Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com>, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>, "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>, "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:39:21 +0800
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] location-conveyance-03 just submitted
Thread-Index: Acsi+NJTa+ULYvovSE2TL/bYrSlncwAKAPJQABWWaxYADURloAAvdkeAAAMwlBA=
Message-ID: <5A55A45AE77F5941B18E5457ECAC81880120E7BC053C@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
References: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03E9DCD1AE@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com><C8633D20.41A01%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03E9DCD24A@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <8C837214C95C864C9F34F3635C2A6575135CDD92@SEA-EXCHVS-2.telecomsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C837214C95C864C9F34F3635C2A6575135CDD92@SEA-EXCHVS-2.telecomsys.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BCN: Meridius 1000 Version 3.4 on csmailgw2.commscope.com
X-BCN-Sender: James.Winterbottom@andrew.com
Subject: Re: [sipcore] location-conveyance-03 just submitted
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: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:39:16 -0000

I support Roger's proposal.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Roger Marshall
> Sent: Friday, 16 July 2010 8:56 AM
> To: Thomson, Martin; Peterson, Jon; James M. Polk; sipcore@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] location-conveyance-03 just submitted
> 
> All:
> My understanding of what this conveyance-03 draft now allows for is
> support of location in terms of:
> 
> LbyV if the geolocation header contains a cid URI which points to a PIDF-
> LO in the body
> Or
> LbyR if the geolocation header contains a location URI
> Or
> Both LbyV & LbyR _only_ if the PIDF-LO that the cid URI points to also
> includes an "associated" Location URI within.  This is what I assume is
> the composite case.
> 
> If this is how it's intended to work, how then would routing be
> accomplished if the intention was to route on location URI, not LbyV?
> 
> The geolocation header parameter value of "routing-allowed" can only be
> yes or no pointing to the whole PIDF-LO:
> 
> [from -03]
>    The practical implication is that when the "routing-allowed"
>    parameter is set to "no", if a cid:url is present in the SIP
>    request, intermediaries MUST NOT view the location (because it is
>    not for intermediaries to view), and if a location URI is present,
>    intermediaries MUST NOT dereference it.  UAs are allowed to view
>    location in the SIP request even when the "routing-allowed"
>    parameter is set to "no".  An LR MUST by default consider the
>    "routing-allowed" header parameter as set to "no", with no
>    exceptions, unless the header field value is set to "yes".
> 
> It seems to me that a better way is to allow geolocation URIs in numbers
> of 0, 1, or 2, so that you could elevate the Location URI up to the
> geolocation header and avoid all the difficulties of not knowing what
> location form was routable, plus escape the overhead of embedding it into
> an otherwise empty PIDF-LO when using LbyR exclusively.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -roger marshall.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email