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

From: Ted Hardie ^lt;hardie@qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 19:30:49 EDT

At 6:11 PM -0400 5/4/07, Marc Linsner wrote:
>Ted,
>
>>
>> But the point is that it is reasonable for a sender to expect
>> that only the end recipient of his SIP message was going to
>> get and use the location if "retransmission=no".
>
>Doesn't it seem odd that in we're going to require the UA to include their
>location with the sip invite to urn:service:sos and then ask them to include
>permission so we can use the required location info for routing? Isn't that
>implied when the UA builds the urn:service:sos invite?
>
>-Marc-

Howdy,

First, please don't base this all on emergency services, which have special
circumstances.

If I read draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance right, it is covering both cases
where SIP sends location from one SIP entity to another and cases where
location-based routing will occur. Having "rentransmission=routing-permitted"
and "retransmission=no" as distinct values allows the end user to say
whether a specific message should be treated according to case one or case
two.

Basically, it is cleaner if we don't try to figure what is implied when
a UA builds their message for dispatch@carservice.example, but let them
specify it instead. We've already agreed to trace this (adding the
message-routed-on-this-URI parameter), but that doesn't give the
user any control. To give the user that control, we have to distinguish
between the case where something is intended for the end recipient *only*
and the case where something may be used to the route the call.

                        regards,
                                Ted

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Fri, 4 May 2007 16:30:49 -0700

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 04 2007 - 19:31:13 EDT