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

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

The problem with 2 locationValues is they can both be values or 
location URIs, which gets us back into the problems of the bloated 
text and all it had to account for in previous versions.

James

At 06:39 PM 7/15/2010, Winterbottom, James wrote:
>I support Roger's proposal.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> > Of Roger Marshall
> > Sent: Friday, 16 July 2010 8:56 AM
> > To: Thomson, Martin; Peterson, Jon; James M. Polk; [e-mail]
> > 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.
> >