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

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 03:23:30 +0200

A summary of where we are on this one.

None of the key points below have been disagreed with, and they are
therefore considered agreed.

One of the comments made on the list was that draft-ietf-pdif-lo may
provide useful information to support this. The editor's and review team
discussed whether draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance should contain a
normative reference to this document. It was agreed that this document
contained provisions that were application specific rather than protocol
specific, and therefore there should not be a normative reference. 

Brian Rosen then took the action to draft text to agree on the list in
regard to this. That action is still in progress on the continuation of
this thread (see post of 1st May and subsequent responses).

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drage, Keith (Keith) 
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:49 PM
> To: 'IETF SIP List'
> Subject: [Sip] Location-conveyance: ISSUE #3 - multiple locations
> 
> (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