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

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:17 PM, Andrew Newton wrote:
>> Just thinking out loud here, but maybe the rule should be that proxies 
>> never append a Location header except for emergencies.
> 
> I think that's desirable unless there's a clear indication by the caller 
> to do otherwise, by some consent mechanism. However, by the time you 
> implement the consent mechanism, you've probably already implemented the 
> better UAC-based mechanism, so it seems hard to argue for that 
> complexity. The only technical argument I've heard for proxy insertion 
> is legacy equipment, where requiring adding consent flags is clearly a 
> non-starter.

I believe there are two technical arguments: one is legacy equipment 
(the issue that I'll be facing for quite some time), and environments 
where the location is generated by the network.  For the latter, 
insertion of the Location header only in emergency situations still puts 
the user in control for non-emergency situations.

-andy


_______________________________________________
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