RE: [Geopriv] Message Flow, again

From: Dawson, Martin ^lt;Martin.Dawson@andrew.com>
Date: Mon Nov 26 2007 - 17:56:45 EST

So - to cut to the chase - you're proposition is that no formal specification for performing OBO ever be defined; it should forever be informal and be left to mutual convention on a per-implementation basis? In which case, really, we just need to seek consensus on whether that is the preferred approach or whether there should be a formal specification? Cheers, Martin -----Original Message----- From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2007 9:09 AM To: Thomson, Martin; geopriv@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Message Flow, again Martin, The omission of protocol is/was on purpose. -Marc- > > Actually Marc, I think that you are mistaking a URI for a > location reference. What you are talking about there is an > OBO. Alternatively, it's a yet-undefined protocol - that is, > the protocol indicated by an 'ip:' URI that yields location > information. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2007 12:37 AM > > To: 'Hannes Tschofenig'; geopriv@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Message Flow, again > > > > Hannes, > > > > In-line.... > > > > ....snip...... > > > > > > > > Now, assume that a the proxy does location based routing and also > > > wants to allow the location recipient to obtain the location > > > information. The request contains the HELD identity extension > > > containing the IP address of UA sending the SIP INVITE message. > > > > > > It constructs a HELD request: > > > > > > <?xml version="1.0"?> > > > <locationRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"> > > > <locationType exact="true"> > > > any > > > locationURI > > > </locationType> > > > <heldDevice xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:id"> > > > <uri>ip:IPv4+192.0.2.5</uri> > > > </heldDevice> > > > </locationRequest> > > > > > > The LIS returns a response with a civic address and the LbyR. > > > > ....snip...... > > > > I'll ask the same question again. Why doesn't a LbyR dereference > > provide the same? > > > > Example: 'IPv4+192.0.2.5@accessprovider.net' > > > > -Marc- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Geopriv mailing list > > Geopriv@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------- > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:56:45 -0600

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 26 2007 - 17:57:49 EST