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

From: Ted Hardie ^lt;hardie@qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue May 01 2007 - 20:19:17 EDT

At 7:42 PM -0400 5/1/07, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>Your example seems to assume that the flag adds privacy by being set. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
>

<snipped emergency example>
I continue to think using the emergency case as the driving example is
warping this discussion. I've reproduced a different example to reinforce
this point below.

>The same is true for the pizza call, so this does not depend on the specific example.
>
>Henning

Let's go with the pizza example, or, even better, a car service example. I occasionally
call a car service to go to the airport, rather than driving and leaving my car there
or getting a ride. There are several local car services that are truly local to me,
and a few that have local numbers but are regional or national operators. As a
consumer I prefer to deal with the truly local operators, since I want to
keep my dollars in my area and believe that they are more reliable than operators
that may have to negotiate traffic just to get to me. I also occasionally find that
one of my "local" car services has been sold, so that calling them transfers me
to one of the big operators.

I don't want that, and I hang up when I realize it.

The parallel in the LoST-using case is any situation where the end user would
be willing to share location with the intended recipient, but is not willing for
it to be used to route the call to the service provider the proxy/LoST combination
finds.

You may not find that a particularly compelling use case. But the simple fact
is that this semantic, "willing to distribute to the recipient, but not wiling for
this to be used in routing", is achievable with one of the two syntax proposals
and it is not achievable with the other. Since the second proposal (relaxing
what "no" means) runs contrary to the basic principles of the work: user
control and a default no, I believe there is no strong reason to accept it
and that loss. It violates the principle of least surprise (no means no to most
folks). There is an obvious way to make sure that the semantics retain
their original force and are appropriately extended. Let's adopt that obvious
way, and move on.
                                Ted

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Tue, 1 May 2007 17:19:17 -0700

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 01 2007 - 20:19:45 EDT