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

From: Henning Schulzrinne ^lt;hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 13:50:37 EDT

Now we're definitely into protocol-lawyering...

I suspect that he would give the same answer for a proxy forwarding a
call that this is retransmission, too.

Let's try logic again. We all agree, I hope, that it's the
combination of identity and location that is privacy-sensitive (but
may disagree whether taking location from a LO is privacy-sensitive).
Thus, by logic, this must be true for the identity part as well, as
they are co-equal parts of this information. Thus, when a proxy
extracts the identity (no location) and asks RADIUS or DIAMETER for
authorization, this would also imply a retransmission and thus be
disallowed.

I note that you keep avoiding addressing the actual consequences of
doing what you propose, given that almost all location-based calls
would fail without setting the flag to yes. This differs from the
'retransmission' flag, in that the whole point was that the desired
recipient could do what they needed, but no more, even if the flag
was set to 'no'.

I have repeatedly proposed a solution; please consult the archives
for details.

Henning

On May 4, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:

> 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?
>

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Fri, 4 May 2007 13:50:37 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 04 2007 - 13:49:30 EDT