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

From: Richard Barnes ^lt;>
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 13:27:38 EDT

I consulted with corporate counsel, and he observed that RFC 4119 says
that if retransmission-allowed=no, then that indicates that the user
doesn't want the recipient to retransmit either the LO (with
identifiers) or the LI (without). This seems to me very explicit, very

So Marc/Henning: Either
1) What about this situation allows retransmission for LoST? Or,
2) What modification do you propose?


Marc Linsner wrote:
> Brian,
>> Are you being dense on purpose, or have I missed something?
> I'll admit, dense is a normal state.
>> A SIP UA sends its location to a proxy server, which takes
>> the LI out and sends it to LoST.
> What makes the LO 'its location'.
> What the proxy is sending
>> is the LI of a device.
> Not if you remove the pieces that makes the LO 'its location'.
> To me, that is exactly what the
>> current 4119 language says you can't do if retransmission-allowed=no.
> Agree if the proxy server were to include device/entity identifiers in the
> transmission to LoST.
>> 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.
> Obviously some are trying to explain common sense and others are trying to
> lawyer 4119.
> Which brings me back to my original question for the lawyer:
> What makes a LO a PIDF-LO?
> or
> Why is a LoST query/response not covered by 4119?
> -Marc-

Geopriv mailing list
Received on Fri, 04 May 2007 13:27:38 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 04 2007 - 13:27:31 EDT