Subject: [Sip] Re: [Geopriv] Location-by-value in a SIP Location Header

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:25:10 -0400

Drage, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> We will need to consider than outside this mail. Personally I think by reference works better for the 3G architecture in this use case. There is certainly no explicit 3GPP requirement at the moment.

Actually, there are many environments where reference works better.

-andy

_______________________________________________
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: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:32:11 -0400

Much as I'd love to dispute this, I think it's a settled issue; we're
supporting location-by-reference in location-conveyance.  I don't think we
need to continue to debate this.  It's in there.

What is still at issue is whether location-by-value in a header is in there.
We need a real use case.  I'm having trouble understanding how you can have
a SIP proxy that can get a call to the outside of some domain, but can't
provide a server to resolve a reference.

If we have bought off on location-by-value in a body, and
location-by-reference in a header, what case is not covered by those two
options?
Much as I would prefer proxy insertion by value over proxy insertion by
reference (even if I think proxy insertion is a bad idea, that's another
settled issue), I think a proxy can always use by-reference.  Fewer options
are better.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:25 AM
> To: Drage, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Location-by-value in a SIP Location Header
> 
> > We will need to consider than outside this mail. Personally I think by
> reference works better for the 3G architecture in this use case. There is
> certainly no explicit 3GPP requirement at the moment.
> 
> 
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:44:55 -0400

> settled issue), I think a proxy can always use by-reference.  Fewer options

I agree.  Fewer options are better.

-andy

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:18:33 -0400

From where do you draw the idea that the WG agreed to location by 
reference?  There were several individual submissions on this subject, 
none of which reached consensus to even include as a WG item, much less 
as a WG consensus in favor.

John

On Jul 20, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Drage, Keith (Keith) wrote:

> In terms of previous WG agreements we have only two mechanisms:
> -	location by value in a body
> -	location by reference in a header

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:04:36 -0400

Well, to be precise, Location by reference has been in the SIP Location
header for a while, and no one has objected to that part of the text.

It's not in any location acquisition protocol yet, although EVERY ONE of the
L7 protocols has included it.

I, personally, would prefer if the only location-by-reference was a presence
subscription.  I think we have to allow that.  It would be nice if that was
it; one mechanism is always better than many if you can get away with it.

Brian

> From: John Schnizlein [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:19 AM
> To: Drage, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [Sip] Re: [Geopriv] Location-by-value in a SIP Location Header
>