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

From: Henning Schulzrinne ^lt;hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue May 01 2007 - 21:51:23 EDT

On May 1, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:

>> To pursue this one a bit: Let's assume we have this flag. Would
>> the definition be "no location-based lookup" at all or only under
>> some circumstances, e.g., based on where the server is located?
>
> Once you start expanding the scope, though, where do you draw the
> line? Can it be used to query a location-based rate computation
> system? Can it be used to deliver location-targeted ads? Is the
> telco authorized to do whatever it wants?

I don't understand this. Location-targeted ads would be delivered by
the end system, which are not affected by this flag (or any other
flag under discussion, for that matter). The carrier already knows
where I live (even if they won't share it with anybody else), just by
looking at my IP address, so they don't need this flag to deliver
location-based ads. My VSP can deliver targeted ads based on my
billing address, if it wanted to.

With your flag, would location-based ads be ok if the flag was set to
yes?

My delineation is fairly straightforward: It's permissible to do
'external' call routing based on locations only, as long as the
identity is not included. Nothing else. Call routing is a necessary
and core function of proxies; targeted ads are not.

>
> If you want to go that route, maybe we could define an "allowed-
> services" element that the user could use to express that the
> enclosed LI/LO could be used with particular protocols. LoST would
> be the first example, RADIUS might be another, I'm sure more would
> come up. This could be a nice compliment to the identity-based
> rules in RFC 4745.

If you want complete privacy, encrypt the location information with
the public key of the recipient. That's real security, not make-
belief security.

>
>> Can we build a new MIME attachment called 'application/lawyer'
>> while we're at it, so that we can include an attorney with the
>> call attempt?
>
> I hear that Verizon has claimed IPR on that. :)

Unfortunately, their lawyers exceed the maximum payload size and
would get fragmented.

Henning

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Tue, 1 May 2007 21:51:23 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 01 2007 - 21:51:39 EDT