Subject: [Geopriv] comments on draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-03.txt

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:12:51 -0400

For the location header to accomplish interoperable location by  
reference, I think much more will need to be specified.  At the  
moment, the draft makes reference to URIs with a vague mention that  
HTTP may be one of the possible URIs.  Just what does it mean to put  
a sip uri in the header?  Just what does it mean to put a mailto or  
dns URI in the header?

Before I make a suggestion, what was the intended target of this  
URI?  Was the thinking that it would be HELD?

-andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:00:21 -0500

Hi Andy,

I think that the only things that need to be specified are the protocol
(and I think that HTTP is sufficient, as a minimum) and the means by
which authentication is achieved (because we need to apply authorization
policies.

Cheers,
Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2006 11:13 AM
> To: GEOPRIV
> Subject: [Geopriv] comments on
draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-03.txt
> URI?  Was the thinking that it would be HELD?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:03:21 -0400

So, is that an HTTP POST or an HTTP GET?  If it is a GET, are there any 
parameters necessary to use.  If it is a POST, what are you POSTing?

On the contrary, much more needs to be specified.

-andy

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:09:00 -0500

Ahh, you can just GET - and there are no parameters necessary.  I'm
thinking about the same degree of specification as is included in
common-policy, which says exactly what I said.

> Sent: Friday, 14 July 2006 12:03 AM
> To: Thomson, Martin
> Cc: GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] comments on draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-
> 03.txt
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:14:19 -0400

Thomson, Martin wrote:
> Ahh, you can just GET - and there are no parameters necessary.

I'm fine with that answer, so long as it is explicitly specified.  BTW, 
I assume a PIDF-LO is returned.  Is it wrapped with S/MIME?  How do I 
know which to expect?

   I'm
> common-policy, which says exactly what I said.

As Keith Moore would undoubtedly point out if he were reading this 
thread, repeating mistakes doesn't make them any more correct.

-andy

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:24:32 -0500

At 10:14 AM 7/13/2006 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
>I'm fine with that answer, so long as it is explicitly specified.

Should a SIP doc specify which mechanism in HTTP is used in the dereference 
transaction?

-04 (i.e. the next version of the doc, which I have half completed this 
week) will clear up the HTTP comment by stating HTTP is to be used by 
location recipients wishing to  dereference a by-reference URI that is in a 
Location header.

I am planning on asking both SIP and Geopriv if there needs to be a written 
requirement (for both UASs and Proxies) to use HTTP for dereference.

>BTW, I assume a PIDF-LO is returned.

This is already stated in the ID, so I don't need to add this.

>Is it wrapped with S/MIME?

This is not a SIP question, IMO - and I am aware this is not a SIP list 
message.

>How do I know which to expect?
>
>   I'm
>As Keith Moore would undoubtedly point out if he were reading this thread, 
>repeating mistakes doesn't make them any more correct.
>
>-andy
>
>

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:27:22 -0400

On Jul 13, 2006, at 6:24 PM, James M. Polk wrote:

> Should a SIP doc specify which mechanism in HTTP is used in the  
> dereference transaction?

It doesn't have to, but it MUST be specified somewhere.... unless  
that URI is for web browsing.  Remember, the end goal is a  
specification that lends itself well to implementations being  
interoperable, not just an RFC number.  You can either take care of  
this problem now, or wait for the IESG to flag it.

-andy

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:15:06 -0500

At 08:27 PM 7/13/2006 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:

>It doesn't have to,

I'm not opposed to - if it belongs, I'm just not sure in belongs in this 
doc.  If it can go here, it's a simple as one sentence and one added 
reference (I think), so it's not a matter of being a lot of additional work 
here.  That's not why I'm resisting it at the moment

>but it MUST be specified somewhere....

I agree, but I'd like to know where this is, or more importantly where this 
is not appropriate to call out.

>unless
>interoperable, not just an RFC number.

I hope you're not suggesting I've taken this document lightly....?

I know the impact, and I've taken the lumps in SIP presenting it each 
meeting - let's just say 'when not everyone in the room believed in the 
topic'...  ;-)

I have been stubborn about this one

>You can either take care of