Subject: [Geopriv] Fwd: New Location Conveyance ID -01

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:39:02 -0500

Prompted by Rohan's message, I will forward my announcement of a new 
version of the SIP Location document (-01) into this WG for comments on the 
SIP list only please.

I do not believe there is anything new from this that affects Geopriv as a 
working group other than to ensure this document is in compliance with SIP 
becoming a Geopriv "using protocol". Section 10 of this ID is dedicated to 
showing this to occur.

>Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:18:04 -0500
>To: [email-masked]
>From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: New Location Conveyance ID -01
>
>SIP WG
>
>I have updated the SIP Location Conveyance ID at the following link:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-01.txt
>
>There are many changes to this version from the previous (1 month old) 
>version.
>
>Here is a short list of those changes:
>
>- rewrote/rearranged much of the middle of the doc,
>- adding Reqs that have been brought to my attention,
>- adding a new header to solve many scenarios presented - needing a solution,
>- bringing up the 424 and 425 Response code sections to the beginning of 
>the solution portion of the ID for clarity,
>- moving most of the XML portions of the message flows back to 10 
>incomplete appendixes.
>- I also give two examples of the same position on the earth (my house) in 
>geo and civic to show the PIDF-LO (between the status lines only).
>- I spent a great deal of time walking the reader through expected 
>behaviors of each SIP element in each scenario (this is the request, here 
>is a viable 200 OK, now here are the alternative responses and what each 
>significant header accomplishes - other than the Call-ID, CSeq, Via, and 
>the other "normal" ones).
>
>This new header is (surprisingly) called "Location" - with an admittedly 
>incomplete ABNF (sorry). This header currently has many option-tags 
>defined, some indicating what format the location is in from the message, 
>others indicating what format is desired to receive back from the query 
>for the UAC's location (see the new OPTIONS and SUB/NOT sections for 
>this), one indicates location is in the message - even if a particular 
>intermediary cannot decrypt it. A CID pointing at which message body is 
>location is also possible now in a SIP Request, as well as allowing for 
>location conveyance by-reference. This last new capability has limitations 
>that are discussed, though I do not believe I have addressed yet all the 
>limitations of this approach.
>
>Comments to the SIP list are appreciated

cheers,
James

                                 *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv