Subject: [Sip] Location-conveyance: ISSUE #3 - multiple locations

From: "Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:00:15 +0200

(As SIP WG chair)

During the review of the WGLC comments, we have identified some issues
where we need consensus calls on the list. These are in one call per
message.

We had a number of comments that it was not clear whether a message
could contain multiple locations, and if they were, what were the
procedures.

On the call we identified what we believe the way forward in this area,
which is summarised by the following statements:

-	location conveyance should support the delivery of multiple
locations;

-	the document will make no recommendations as to how the
recipient chooses 
which location to use. This is regarded as specific to the using
application, 
and therefore beyond the scope of the protocol extension;

-	the recipient should attempt to make use of all the locations
given, and 
should only respond with a 424 response if it is unable to use any of
those 
locations. This includes resolving all and any locations by reference;

-	as a result of the above, any 424 response is a collective
statement about 
all the locations given in the request rather than any specific location
in the 
request.

We will assume that this represents WG consensus unless we hear
otherwise from the WG in 7 calendar days from the posting of this
message. 

Obviously if the WG has an alternative view, some proposal of the
alternative way forward and the expected impact on the text would be
entirely appropriate.

Regards

Keith

_______________________________________________
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: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:24:35 -0500

Hi Keith,

The GEOPRIV PIDF-LO profile document makes suggestions about including
and interpreting multiple locations. This may be the right document to
reference with regards to this topic.

Cheers
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, 29 April 2007 6:00 AM
> To: IETF SIP List
> Subject: [Sip] Location-conveyance: ISSUE #3 - multiple locations
> 
> (As SIP WG chair)
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

---

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:16:06 +0200

Hi Keith, 

I also suggested to make use of the PIDF-LO profile document for this purpose in the past. See, for example, http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg15002.html

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:10:16 -0500

At 02:16 AM 4/29/2007, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>Hi Keith,
>
>I also suggested to make use of the PIDF-LO profile document for 
>this purpose in the past. See, for example, 
>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg15002.html

right now, this document does not have an ID as a reference, 
normative or informative, and I'd like to keep it that way, if possible.

I will remove the evolution of the paragraph (which has been reduced 
quite a bit) Hannes quotes at the above URL