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

From: Tom-PT Taylor ^lt;taylor@nortel.com>
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 13:53:31 EDT

This seems to be grinding to a conclusion. To help it along, I have an use case
that resolves Henning's practical conundrum. Henning argued that disallowing
routing on location would cause calls to fail. But what if the user device did
the LoST query, then added location for dispatch purposes? There would be no
need for intermediate entities to route on location and the call would go
through properly.

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?
>
> --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
>

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Fri, 04 May 2007 13:53:31 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 04 2007 - 13:54:46 EDT