RE: RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-conveyance

> Please tell me that you are merely suggesting guidelines and
> considerations by operators and are not suggesting 2119 language for
> these?  Because just like you'd never get agreement on the intended
> duration or accuracy or confidence of location-by-value, you'd never
> get agreement on these.
I agree here

> 
> > For the latter point: except for emergency scenario's, the UAC
> > should include some flag in the INVITE saying "proxy: please append
> > location". You'd probably also want some feedback (eg proxy or UAS
> > adding a header to the response saying 'this is the URL that I
> > appended/got'
> 
> Just thinking out loud here, but maybe the rule should be that
> proxies never append a Location header except for emergencies.
Works for me.  Probably wouldn't work for those carriers who do not intend
to support location acquisition by endpoints and do plan to support
commercial location based routing.  They plan to make mucho dineros charging
for location used for location based routing, and don't want those pesky
users to get in the way of their plans.  Of course, they can overcome all
manner of protocol machinery with "As a condition of providing service, user
agrees ...."

Brian


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip