[Geopriv] PIDF-LO Profile thoughts and a way forward

From: Winterbottom, James ^lt;James.Winterbottom@andrew.com>
Date: Wed Aug 08 2007 - 22:00:13 EDT

Hi All, One of the actions that came out of the meeting in Chicago was for people with opinions about PIDF-LO profile to go away and read the Presence Data Model RFC-4479. I have gone away and read this now and have come back not seeing how this helps address the issue of which location to use for routing a call. Let me give some background of where PIDF-LO profile had it roots. Several years ago now NENA started work on a migratory standard for emergency VoIP calls. This basically said, lets assume that the call originates in the VoIP world, but has to terminate at legacy circuit-switched PSAPs. We looked for location formats and objects and decided, for better or worse, to use the PIDF-LO. It has some nice characteristics about it, but because it is flexible and extensible presence document when you want a definitive answer for something it can be really hard to get one. This latter point is stressed consistently in RFC-4479 with comments like "... resolution of ambiguity is best left to the watcher that consumes the document". So I wrote a very basic set of rules (note 4479 wasn't out at this point and PIDF-LO was still a draft) that would the NENA i2 routing node, the VPC, to pick a location out of a PIDF-LO document to use for routing. This was the birth of PIDF-LO profile. It was extended to address common geodetic shapes that people might require, but the basic profile was set to allow a downstream consumer of location to have no doubt about where the upstream user of a device was. Having a document that describes generally how location can be used in presence documents is an admirable to thing to want. It is not, however, the purpose for which PIDF-LO profile was written, and modifying PIDF-LO profile to address specifically this would mean that its initial intent would not be served, leaving us with a serious deficiency with regards to using PIDF-LO in routing applications. I therefore have two proposals for the WG to consider. 1) We leave PIDF-LO profile as it is, and address specifically the routing aspect. A second document is commissioned purely for addressing the open presence profile concerns (my preference). 2) We try and address both the routing aspect and general presence concerns in the same document. Please provide comments as I want to get this document closed. Cheers James ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:00:13 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 08 2007 - 22:02:06 EDT