[Geopriv] SIP Location Conveyance -03 submitted

From: James M. Polk ^lt;jmpolk@cisco.com>
Date: Thu Jun 29 2006 - 15:54:13 EDT

Geopriv WG

Here is the forwarded message I sent to the SIP WG list indicating a new
version of the SIP Location Conveyance ID is now available for review and
comments (on the SIP list please!).

This is the document that specifies SIP as a Geopriv "Using Protocol" per
RFC 3693 (Geopriv Requirements).

>Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:50:44 -0500
>To: sip@ietf.org
>From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
>Subject: SIP Location Conveyance -03 submitted
>
>I've submitted -03 of the SIP Location Conveyance ID for review and comments.
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-03.txt
>
> This is a list of the changes that have been made from the SIP WG
> version -02 to this version -03:
>
> - general clean-up of some of the sections
>
> - removed the message examples from the UPDATE, MESSAGE and REGISTER
> sections, as these seemed to be making the doc less readable, and
> not more readable
>
> - removed the "unknown" option tag, as it was not needed with a
> certain combination of the Supported and Location headers
>
> - clarified the location option tag usage in Supported, Require,
> Unsupported, and that it shouldn't be used in Proxy-Require, and
> why not.
>
> - Added a basic message flow to the basic operation section (Section
> 4) to aid in understanding of this SIP extension.
>
> - Added a message routing flow, which is based on the location of
> the requestor to show how a SIP server can make a routing decision
> to a destination based on where the UAC is.
>
> - Articulated how a UAS concludes a UAC understands this extension,
> yet does not know its location to provide to the UAS. This is
> helpful in those times where an intermediary will act differently
> based on whether or not a UAC understands this extension, and
> whether or not the UAC includes its location in the request.
>
> - Corrected the erroneous text regarding an Unsupported header being
> in a 424 response. It belongs in a 420 response. (Section 5.1)
>
> - Corrected the BNF (I hope)
>
> - Corrected some text in Section 5 that read like this document was
> an update to RFC 3261.

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:54:13 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 29 2006 - 17:03:44 EDT