Re: [sipcore] location conveyance looks good

"James M. Polk" <> Wed, 27 October 2010 04:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F4793A67D3 for <>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.542
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wSqFW3oH9F-t for <>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D667B3A6992 for <>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,244,1286150400"; d="scan'208";a="610238443"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2010 04:29:57 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9R4TuCM027015; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:29:56 GMT
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:29:55 -0500
To: "Thomson, Martin" <>, "James M. Polk" <>, "Peterson, Jon" <>
From: "James M. Polk" <>
In-Reply-To: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F31EAF78@SISPE7MB1.comms>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] location conveyance looks good
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: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:28:12 -0000

At 12:50 AM 10/26/2010, Thomson, Martin wrote:
>Reviewing the changes in 
>draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-04.  Nothing much to add except nits.
>I could quibble.  I still don't like or want the entirety of Section 4.3

that would be quibbling, and we don't want that, now do we?

>and the serial nature Figure 2 is a little mysterious to me

if I send you a SIP request with a location URI, you need to be able 
to dereference it (or at least try) before you accept the SIP 
request. I know it'll add a bit of time to the 200 OK, but that will 
allow confirmation of location delievery - which isn't the location 
URI, but the location value itself (i.e., the PIDF-LO). If the 
dereference fails after you've sent me a 200 OK, how can you possibly 
tell me that there was something wrong with my delivery of location to you?

>, but it's down to subjective stuff like that, the effort just 
>doesn't pay off.
>So, ship it.
>This seems odd, especially since the parameter is MUST-strength mandatory:
>    ...  If no routing-allowed parameter
>    is present in a SIP request, a SIP intermediary MAY insert this
>    value with a RECOMMENDED value of "no" by default.
>Cross references should capitalize the 's' in Section 3.4.
>The MIME multipart headers are still in the wrong place (see Section 
>5 of RFC 2387 to see how this is done):
>Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
>Content-ID: <>
><?xml version="1.0" standalone="true"?>
><presence ...
>Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
>Content-ID: <>
><?xml version="1.0" standalone="true"?>
><presence ...