Re: [sipcore] composition or just indirection (was: location-conveyance-03 just submitted)

"Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> Tue, 20 July 2010 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
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 654D33A69DF for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 03:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.26
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.340, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 vFn12+p6GPSN for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 03:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2017F3A694C for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 03:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 12690 invoked by uid 0); 20 Jul 2010 10:23:34 -0000
Received: from 213.162.68.136 by www041.gmx.net with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:23:33 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:23:33 +0200
From: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <C86A5127.41D91%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Message-ID: <20100720102333.24820@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <C86A5127.41D91%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
To: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>, rbarnes@bbn.com
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Flags: 0001
X-Mailer: WWW-Mail 6100 (Global Message Exchange)
X-Priority: 3
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18qlMpBCPsqQMqyl2YNNO7aUU5YxCR8x9uApm8wsY qD7YwckQW36yx9eU3uI812k+JdwmXejR6aDg==
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-GMX-UID: RBUuJPtcTlI8f5sGtWlrrxFOU2poZVkn
X-FuHaFi: 0.58999999999999997
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org, Martin.Thomson@andrew.com, RMarshall@telecomsys.com
Subject: Re: [sipcore] composition or just indirection (was: 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: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:23:22 -0000

Still trying to catch up with the mail thread but a few basic observations: 

1) There is the 'entity' attribute in the <presence> element that points to the Target. 

2) There is RFC 5491 http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5491/ that describes how different location chunks (including "compound location") are interpreted. It also describes the meaning of different location objects in a PIDF-LO. 

3) We know that we want to transmit multiple location chunks, and multiple location objects of the same Target. We do not seem to have use cases for transmitting location of >>different<< Targets in the same SIP message. 

So, this should allow us to carry one of multiple MIME bodies with PIDF-LOs in a SIP message (referring to the same Target) in a single SIP message. 

The following items are left for discussions, I believe: 

- How to encode the LbyR (in addition to the LbyV)
- Procedures for how an intermediary attaches a reference to a PIDF-LO 
- Whether there needs to be a relationship between the 'entity' attribute in the <presence> element and the From header of a SIP message.

I am less interested in the used-for-routing optimizations etc. 

Did I correctly capture the challenge? 

Ciao
Hannes