[sipcore] Location Conveyance -04 submitted, here's the changes

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

SIPCORE

I've submitted the next version of Location Conveyance (-04)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-04.txt
and I believe this version has addressed each open item from the 
mailing list, as well as what was discussed and agreed to in the 
Maastricht meeting.

I have attempted to identify each open issue with the specific 
resolution here (in no particular order):

- Martin wanted Section 3 to be broken up into subsections, each 
revolving around each of the 4 diagrams. I have done this.

- allowed a maximum of two (up from one) locationValues to be present 
in the Geolocation header value. The text however recommends against 
inserting a second value. This was agreed to in Maastricht.

- Because we're allowing a max of two locationValues, they can be in 
separate Geolocation headers in the SIP request. This scenario 
necessitates bring a previous version's paragraph in stating that a 
'SIP intermediary MUST inspect all instances of each Geolocation 
header before considering the routing-allowed parameter to be 
considered =yes', to ensure there isn't a conflict in the 'other' 
Geolocation header that states the policy is =no.

- with the ability to add a second locationValue, it is necessary to 
warn against doing this (confusion at the LRs).

- Added the "you break it you bought it" philosophy to SIP 
intermediaries that choose to insert a second location where one 
already existed, especially for inserting a location URI in the 
downstream SIP request.

- Fixed the ABNF to handle zero, one or two (but no more) 
locationValues according to the agreement in Maastricht.  There is a 
one-off use case which won't be in play very often, but is a WG item 
in ECRIT that several wanted to allow the possibility for (involving 
allowing one coarse and one highly accurate location in the same SIP request).

- Paul K. wanted the use-case in which a SIP intermediary inserts a 
locationValue where one didn't exist previously, and received a 424 
(Bad Location Information) to that inserted location, from having the 
424 propagate towards the UAC (as the UAC might not know what to do 
with a 424). This is now covered in Section 4.3.

- changed existing text to "MUST NOT" from "does not" about a 424 not 
terminating an existing dialog (just increased the strength of this.

- I added the 424 to the table 2 entry in which the Geolocation 
header can be in only this response.

- I added text stating the conditions for adding a Geolocation header 
value to the 424, to make it clear what is and what isn't allowed for this.

- Martin wanted me to add back in the top level Geolocation-Error 
codes 100, 200, 300 and 400, which I did in section 4.3.

- rejected the idea that the geolocation option-tag hasn't been justified.

- Added RFCs 2616, 2818 and HELD Deref ID to the references section 
because I added the ability to include HTTP: and HTTPS: URIs, and 
stated if received, they should be dereferenced according to the HELD 
Deref doc.

- changed the Section 5 examples how Martin wanted them.

- Stated that GEO-URIs are not appropriate for the SIP Geolocation 
header, according to the discussion during the Maastricht Geopriv meeting.

- we changed the privacy section, and included a ref to the Geopriv 
Arch doc, according to the agreement in Geopriv at Maastricht.


Comments are encouraged

We plan to request (3rd?) WGLC during the SIPCORE meeting in Beijing 
(to give folks a sense of our plans).

James/Brian/Jon