Re: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-04

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

I was going to suggest alternative ABNF in my prior posting, but I ran 
out of time and wanted to send it. So here is a proposal:

    Geolocation-header = "Geolocation" HCOLON Geolocation-value
			*( COMMA Geolocation-value)
    Geolocation-value  = locationValue / routing-param
    locationValue      =  LAQUOT locationURI RAQUOT
                           *(SEMI geoloc-param)
    locationURI        =  sip-URI / sips-URI / pres-URI
                           / http-URI / HTTPS-URI
                           / cid-url ; (from RFC 2392)
                           / absoluteURI ; (from RFC 3261)
    geoloc-param       =  generic-param;  (from RFC 3261)
    routing-param      =  "routing-allowed" EQUAL "yes" / "no"

This syntax is consistent with 3261 section 7.3:

    Specifically, any SIP header whose grammar is of the form

       header  =  "header-name" HCOLON header-value *(COMMA header-value)

    allows for combining header fields of the same name into a comma-
    separated list.

(That means there is an equivalence between multiple occurrences of the 
header, and a single header with multiple fields.)

(I would prefer to have a separately named header for the routing-param, 
but I think we are too far down the river to make that change now.)

The above is overly forgiving, in that it permits zero or more 
locationURIs and zero or more routing-params. That then needs to be 
tightened up with text. I think the text needs to say, more or less:

- if there are any locationURIs in a sip request,
   then a routing-param MUST be present in the request
- there MUST NOT be more than one routing-param present in a
   sip request.
- there MUST NOT be more than two locationURIs in a sip request
   (if there is really a reason for such a restriction)

Actually the MUST requirement on the routing-param also seems 
unmotivated to me. Why not just a default of routing-allowed=no?

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 10/27/2010 12:06 AM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> On 2010-10-27 at 12:36:02, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> I have never understood why the routing-param is required to be last.
>> And as my examples show, its difficult/impossible to enforce this in
>> ABNF.	
>
> If "routing-allowed" is mandatory, it IS possible:
>
>      Geolocation-header = "Geolocation" HCOLON Geolocation-value
>      Geolocation-value  = [ locationValue [ COMMA locationValue ] COMMA ]
>                           routing-param
>
> It's a little strange, but it does work.  Especially if you also add text that states there can be only one GeoLocation header?
>
> (The other thing that I find strange is the fact that there can be zero, one or two locationValue parts.  This is confusing for computer scientists who can only count: zero, one, many.)
>
> --Martin