RE: [Sip] RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-conveyance

From: Jeroen Van Bemmel ^lt;>
Date: Sun Jul 30 2006 - 04:36:28 EDT

Yes,mine too, with one additional remark: the location based routing use case should be removed

It is a special case of a more general one: route to some party in area X. This need not have anything to do with the caller's location, in fact for privacy reasons it is better not.

LBR is better handled using caller prefs/callee capabilities (eg define, not using PIDF at all for simplicity)

Given the above, proxy removal of location and data URIs are less of an issue


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Stark, Barbara" <>
Aan: "Henning Schulzrinne" <>; "Brian Rosen" <>
CC: "IETF SIP List" <>;
Verzonden: 27-7-06 22:02
Onderwerp: RE: [Sip] RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-conveyance

This gets my vote.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne []
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:25 PM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: IETF SIP List;
> Subject: Re: [Sip] RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to
> location-conveyance
> My suggestion would be
> - to focus the draft on just defining the Location header syntax,
> without ruling out any particular mechanism or scheme; this would
> make the draft really short (which I would find helpful).
> - and then add one section to the draft that prototypically defines
> what a particular scheme that wants to appear in the Location header
> needs to define, using the non-controversial cid mechanism as the
> example. Other, separate, drafts can then define other modes,
> following the same template. Documents such as the phone-bcp
> can then
> pick some suitable must-implement subset and make emergency-call-
> specific recommendations, rather than sprinkling these

Geopriv mailing list
Received on Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:36:28 +0200

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jul 30 2006 - 04:52:09 EDT