Re: [Geopriv] Location in SIP and "retransmission-allowed"

From: Henning Schulzrinne ^lt;hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue May 01 2007 - 13:55:51 EDT

I think what got lost in the long message is the crucial distinction
that the LoST request contains no personally identifiable information
about the querier (except maybe the IP address of the proxy server),
unlike a normal PIDF-LO. This is logically no different than making,
say, a query to Google that shows some street address. So far, at
least, nobody has asked Google to cease and desist to use Google Maps
since it is not GEOPRIV compliant.

To further show that this leads to something absurd, let's go through
the various permutations:

(1) Proxy server has a local database that maps locations to URLs
(not LoST, just some script or SQL table). Presumably, no privacy
concerns.

(2) The database is now in a separate server, operated by the same
organization. Is this retransmission?

(3) The proxy operates the LoST resolver (on the same box as the
proxy), but not the FG and other components. Is that retransmission?
Only if the answer is not already cached?

(4) It's an emergency call; no retransmission allowed. No LoST query?

We're getting into heavy-duty protocol lawyering here, out of touch
with reality as perceived by the rest of the world.

Henning

On May 1, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

>
>> 3. Does the current definition of retransmission-allowed=no permit
>> a sip
>> proxy server to send Location Information to a LoST server (without
>> identity)?
>
> No, I don't think so. Whether you consider the proxy or the Lost
> server
> to be a recipient in that case, I believe one of the two is. I think
> the routing-query-allowed solution is better than allowing
> retransmission=no
> to be weakened for this in the Pizza case. If retransmission=no is
> allowed to include this case, I see no way for an end user which
> did not
> want to to allow routing queries to be performed to express that; so
> the choices appear to be to create an explicit permission or add a
> "no, really, even including routing queries" entry. The explicit
> permission
> seems cleaner and clearer.
>

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Tue, 1 May 2007 13:55:51 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 01 2007 - 13:54:24 EDT