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

From: Henning Schulzrinne ^lt;>
Date: Wed May 09 2007 - 16:50:14 EDT

> And here I thought the burden of proof for someone changing the
> semantics
> of a settled, published RFC was on the person proposing the change.
> RFC 4119
> is clear on the current semantics, Henning. You're the one arguing
> for changing
> the meaning of "no" in a published doc. I'm trying to find a way
> to get the
> semantics you need without borking the ones the WG already agreed on.

Since we're now into protocol lawyering, I'll play: The text in 4119

'retransmission-allowed': When the value of this element is 'no', the
       Recipient of this Location Object is not permitted to share the
       enclosed Location Information, or the object as a whole, with
       other parties. When the value of this element is 'yes',
       distributing this Location is permitted (barring an existing out-
       of-band agreement or obligation to the contrary). By default,
       value MUST be assumed to be 'no'. Implementations MUST include
       this field, with a value of 'no', if the Rule Maker specifies no

'parties' is not defined in RFC 4119, as far as I can tell, as the
word only appears once. The text certainly makes no distinction based
on protocols, so that forwarding by SIP is ok, but forwarding by
another protocol is not. RFC 3693 does not define party in any
technical terms, either.

The IETF boiler plate uses party in an organizational sense ("invites
any interested party...").

Wikipedia defines

A party is a person or group of persons that compose a single entity
which can be identified as one for the purposes of the law.

Again, this makes no distinction based on protocols, or even whether
this is a single individual. In this case, 'party' could just as well
be a government agency operating a PSAP or PizzaHut.

Thus, I see no textual basis for your statement.


Geopriv mailing list
Received on Wed, 9 May 2007 16:50:14 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 09 2007 - 16:48:31 EDT