Re: [Sipping-emergency] New revision of proposed ECRIT charter

What Nadine wants is the name of the organization that provided the 
location to the endpoint. This is not a decoupled action between the CIPID 
and the PIDF-LO, their are in association with each other. Revealing who 
asserts my location information (Fort_worth_VPC.org) reveals fairly 
specifically where I am in most contexts. This is a revelation of location 
information I as a user might not want in my location policy. If you 
mandate it is outside of the rules of PIDF-LO, we must generate a duplicate 
set of privacy and security requirements in this WG

At 08:44 AM 10/29/2004 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>Tschofenig Hannes wrote:
>>hi james, nadine, henning,
>>henning pointed us to some work in the simple wg. maybe you, nadine, want to
>>check whether the nena requirements match the currently offered
>>functionality.
>
>To amplify: vCard currently provides the name (and other information), but 
>doesn't provide the service provider name and other details. However, it 
>would seem trivial to add either to CIPID or vCard, as they may well be 
>useful outside the emergency services context. From a data type 
>perspective, these pieces of information aren't really location 
>information, so stuffing them into PIDF-LO or an extension thereof seems a 
>bit of a stretch.
>
>My general inclination is to avoid emergency-only protocol features.
>
>Henning
>
>

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

_______________________________________________
Sipping-emergency mailing list
Sipping-emergency@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-emergency