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

Henning Schulzrinne <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.sip,gmane.ietf.geopriv
Message-ID <[email protected]>
> Proxy insertion of location, whether by value or by reference has  
> the threat
> of not being as subject to user control, but I think in every case  
> you have
> to trust your provider to do as you wish, whether it is your presence
> provider or your location provider independent of your presence  
> provider,
> and proxy insertion doesn't fundamentally alter that.  I worry more  
> about
> it, but I don't objectively think it's much different.

It is slightly different: For the presence provider, I can fairly  
easily verify whether the presence provider does what I tell him to  
do (unless the presence provider is clearly violating my privacy  
rules, which is probably subject to legal breach-of-contract recourse  
in most jurisdictions). This is much harder to do with proxy insertion.

> sufficiently, and we have RFCs that permit it.  Adding restrictions  
> on the
>

The only one that permits is the presence subscription model, which  
gives the target/rule maker a lot of control of who can do what with  
my location data. I can, on a person-by-person basis, restrict access  
to that data. If my proxy inserts some location object or reference  
to it that it made up, I don't even control the privacy rules in the  
object returned.


>
> I kind of like the idea that the proxy inserts the header in the  
> response so
> the UAC can see it.  What do others think of that?
>

This is probably a good idea, but imposes additional restrictions on  
the longevity of the reference. How long should I be able to "see"  
it? We don't want LIS to keep the location data around any longer  
than is needed, but there are no expectations set of what's  
reasonable. By-value doesn't suffer from these problems.

Henning

_______________________________________________
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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.