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

From: Brian Rosen ^lt;>
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 11:58:07 EDT

Are you being dense on purpose, or have I missed something?

A SIP UA sends its location to a proxy server, which takes the LI out and
sends it to LoST. What the proxy is sending is the LI of a device. To me,
that is exactly what the current 4119 language says you can't do if

I'm NOT really arguing one way or another about whether this should be
allowed or not. I'm trying to figure out if you want a normative change to
4119. I keep reading your messages as being "NO, I don't think we need to
normatively change 4119". I'm trying to figure out how you do that.

4119 says you can't send LI of a device. A SIP proxy sending a UA's
location to a LoST server is sending LI of a device. Where am I going wrong


-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Linsner []
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:22 AM
To: 'Brian Rosen'; 'Richard Barnes'
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Location in SIP and "retransmission-allowed"

> But the location IS that of a device.

You are assuming that! What device?

> Are you arguing that 4119 is wrong, and we should normatively
> change it, or are you arguing that a routing query does have
> the LI of a device and thus the current language of 4119 permits it?

No, I'm arguing that GeoPriv doesn't care about a LO void of 'entity'. It's
not a 'device' until you tie identity to it.

If you are correct, then LoST needs changing. You are inferring that any LO
must carry "retransmission-allowed" because you assume a device resides at
the location. The LoST query would need "retransmission-allowed" and the
LoST response would need "retransmission-allowed". Doesn't that seem odd to


Geopriv mailing list
Received on Fri, 4 May 2007 11:58:07 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 04 2007 - 11:58:18 EDT