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

From: Richard Barnes ^lt;rbarnes@bbn.com>
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
common-sense.

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

--Richard

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
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
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