[Sipping-emergency] PIDF-LO Emergency Additions for consideration

All

A group of us in Seoul reacted to the discussion in SIPPING and Geopriv 
regarding where certain requirements should be met regarding added 
information within a SIP INVITE message. I initiated most of the confusion 
by listing several requirements that were brought to my attention (due to 
me writing (with Brian Rosen) the Location Conveyance in SIP ID) as being 
necessary within the message (I might not have explained very well that the 
message needed these elements - SIP itself did not necessarily). You can 
review my preso from the softarmor site for what was presented.

The group of us (Brian, Henning, myself, Keith Drage, Hannes Tschofenig and 
Nadine Abbott) distilled to two the list of 5 or 6 that should be addressed 
within the PIDF-LO ID for now. Jon (that doc's author) is already aware of 
1 of these, and has heard about the other - but didn't know to my knowledge 
which set of additional elements we'd chosen. We agreed this reflector 
would be the first to see the list before it's offered to the Geopriv list 
during that ID's WGLC.

We want to request that the two additional information elements be:

1. 	by what mechanism did the UAC receive its LI from (.11, GPS,
	manual entry, Triangulation, DHCP) by name, not number

	i.e: *not*
	1=GPS
	2=DHCP
	etc

	I think this list is going to have to be IANA registered for this
	effort for consistency.

2.	what organization was that LI field value provided by (in the
	form of a URI)

comments?

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