

> e.d.) all seem vastly different from the general case.=20
> Link that to the observation that a header-based mechanism=20
> would be much easier to generate (both by UEs and gateways)=20
> and parse at routing proxies and PSAPs, reducing the chance=20
> at errors in situations that may cost lives AND speeding up=20
> implementation rates, I'd say : separate it out?
>=20
> Regards,
> Jeroen
>=20
> Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> > I mis-spoke. I was actually thinking of a different solution, more=20
> > appropriate to the SIP header model. After all, for geo, two numbers
> > (long/lat) in WGS84 datum are all that matters in most=20
> circumstances,=20
> > on occasion augmented by a third (some 'measurement accuracy'
> > indication).
> >
> > The XMPP XML model that Juha and you refer to isn't all that much=20
> > simpler than GEOPRIV civic or GML Point, just different, as=20
> you note.
> > (Whether supporting the multitude of geometric shapes in=20
> the pdif-lo=20
> > profile spec is truly required and where is another=20
> discussion which=20
> > belongs elsewhere.)
> >
> > I don't know if by 'security' you refer to the embedded privacy=20
> > policies; in most cases, restrictive default values would=20
> do the trick=20
> > for those. Plus, for emergency calls, few PSAPs are going=20
> to observe=20
> > 'do not distribute' or 'do not retain' in any event, simply because=20
> > the law in many jurisdictions contradicts those desires.
> >
> > Henning
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Henning,
> >>
> >> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0080.html takes an interesting=20
> >> approach by largely ignoring previous work on geolocation.=20
> It is just=20
> >> too attractive to create your own flavor of civic and geodetic=20
> >> location information format.
> >>
> >> Interestingly enough there is a full-blown solution for XMPP=20
> >> available as well that builds on the OMA protocols. I have=20
> to search=20
> >> for the reference, if someone cares. That one is far more complex=20
> >> than GEOPRIV.
> >>
> >> If you argue for simplicity then you refer to =20
> http://www.xmpp.org/=20
> >> extensions/xep-0080.html.
> >>
> >> If you argue for functionality, different environments and=20
> >> interworking with existing systems then you point to the OMA=20
> >> extension.
> >>
> >> It's so easy. Translated to our work in GEOPRIV this would mean the
> >> following: If we want to convince people to use it then we=20
> just point=20
> >> them to the easy WLAN or enterprise case with a simple civic or a=20
> >> simple point representation.
> >>
> >> Ciao
> >> Hannes
> >>
> >> PS: Last November I was at a conference on mobility protocols.
> >> Someone gave a presentation on a new mobility protocol design. The=20
> >> author claimed it was very simple. Indeed, it was simple=20
> -- because=20
> >> it just didn't care about security.
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip-implementors mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>=20

_______________________________________________
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