Subject: [Sip] Re: NITS: draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-09.txt

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:37:48 -0600

Adam

Thanks for the comments. see in-line below

At 02:58 PM 11/27/2007, Adam Roach wrote:
>"A 424 (Bad Location Information) response is a final response 
>within a transaction, and does not terminate a dialog."
>
>This does a good job in being specific on the effect of the newly 
>defined error responses -- however, to be as precise as possible, I 
>propose that this sentence should read "...and does not terminate a 
>_usage_." (Alternately: "...a usage or a dialog.")

went with the alternate above

>Also -- and I could just be missing something here -- but this 
>document appears to have removed a couple of important header field 
>parameters from the IANA section. Section 5.2 explains:
>
>   There are 3 Geolocation header parameters,
>
>   o "inserted-by="
>   o "used-for-routing"

the two above were taken out, as they do not have parameter-values 
(which I thought one night was the barrier to be included on this 
list).  I can add them in easily.

>   o "recipient="
>
>However, the IANA registration contains only "recipient:"
>
>   Geolocation Header parameters
>
>   Header Parameters     Parameter-values      Reference
>   ----------------      ----------------      --------------
>   recipient             endpoint              RFC XXXX (this document)
>   recipient             routing-entity        RFC XXXX (this document)
>   recipient             both                  RFC XXXX (this document)
>
>
>It appears that draft-...-08 _did_ contain the other two parameters. 
>Why were they removed?

see above

>/a

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:37:48 -0600

Adam

see above

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:19:04 -0600

James M. Polk wrote:
>
>> [T]his document appears to have removed a couple of important header 
>> field parameters from the IANA section. Section 5.2 explains:
>>

I've become more confused just now. The headers on the table in the IANA 
section of this document don't appear to match any of the tables in the 
sip-parameters registry 
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters>. If you could point to 
the table in question, I could probably find you a specific example of 
parameters being registered without predefined parameter values in the 
specific table in question. (The specific registry that I think you're 
aiming for is "Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values", which has 
a column to indicate whether the parameter has predefined values -- and 
most of them don't).

/a