Re: RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-conveyance
Andrew Newton <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip,gmane.ietf.geopriv |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Henning Schulzrinne wrote: >> 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. >> >> > > For the latter, the combination of the in-progress L7 protocols, DHCP > and LLDP should presumably allow the UAC to obtain location and insert > it by value. Is there a use case not covered by that? As I said, where location comes from the network. In this scenario, there are two possibilities, both up to the user: 1) the UAC subscribes to the location from the network and puts it by value in the call flow... meaning all location updates go through the UAC, or 2) the UAC hands out a reference so updates can be independent of the UAC or updates based on subscription come from the UAC but are independent of the call. -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