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

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

At 03:45 PM 3/9/2011, Robert Sparks wrote:
>There are a couple of larger and several small things to also 
>address in this document before requesting publication.
>
>The larger things:
>
>3) I can't figure out what the paragraph in section 4.4 that starts 
>"Additionally, if a sip entity cannot..." and goes
>onto talk about 503's is trying to say. I think some surrounding 
>context must have been lost or not captured.
>Why would we be recommending sending a 503 here?

pick on this one point, there was an error code for that basically 
said "couldn't process the location you just sent me, but it's ok to 
try again" *and* "couldn't process the location you just sent me, 
don't try to resend it for a while". Jon didn't like the idea of 
something that he feels duplicates the 503 with a retry after header 
field. He was on a mission to reduce the number of geolocation-error 
codes, and these two go whacked. That's where this text comes from. 
I'll get with him about writing this section better - or do you have 
an alternate plan we should pursue?

James