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

From: Jeroen van Bemmel ^lt;jbemmel@zonnet.nl>
Date: Sun Jul 30 2006 - 14:29:08 EDT

Hi Hannes,

see inline

Regards,

jeroen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
To: "Jeroen van Bemmel" <jbemmel@zonnet.nl>
Cc: "Henning Schulzrinne" <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>; "IETF SIP List"
<sip@ietf.org>; "GEOPRIV" <geopriv@ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip] RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-conveyance

> Hi Jeroen,
>
> in past discussions we concluded that we don't want to have a special
> encoding for location-based routing.
>

I was not aware of any such conclusion. IMHO PIDF-LO is not the answer to
all location-based problems, but before we delve into that discussion
again - I was argueing that "location conveyance" and "location based
routing" are separate cases. Do you agree with that?

A simple illustrative example: suppose I will be going on holiday to Paris
next week. I want to make a hotel reservation, and call some well-known
chain of hotels. My location will be somewhere in Holland (at the moment of
calling), and I want my call to go to their Paris office. How would this
work with only 1 PIDF-LO?

> I agree with Henning that the level of granularity might, in some cases,
> be different depending on the consumer of the PIDF-LO. This is, however,
> more a location-based scenario rather than an emergency calling scenario.
> The problem is that the end host does not necessarily know the service
> boundary ahead of time and hence you don't know the required granularity
> of the location object. If you omit too many elements from the PIDF-LO
> then LoST might just return incorrect information.

OK, so perhaps the required granularity for matching would have to be
specified as part of the callee-capabilities. Then an error would occur (eg
the proxy would return '485 Ambiguous', with candidate contacts) when no
locations match the given criteria. For specific cases (like Emergency) I
imagine the required granularity would be defined, such that the UA would
know in advance.

I understand the desire to limit the number of different formats and
encodings being used, but caller prefs / callee capabilities is more than a
format - it is a specific, existing SIP mechanism that can address several
useful scenarios. It has many benefits - for one, in this way LBR could be
introduced for existing proxies (that support caller prefs).

Regards,

jeroen

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:29:08 +0200

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jul 30 2006 - 14:45:13 EDT