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

Jeroen van Bemmel 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?
> 
> With the current proposals (location by value in body): the use case for 
> a location based routing service, where my location does not get passed 
> to the selected targets
> 
> It is possible to do a redirect-based callflow, but that has several 
> drawbacks:
> - more complex, requires extensions beyond basic RFC3261
> - inefficient signalling
> - adds delay
> - no parallel forking possible (though some would call this a benefit)
> 
> The data: URI in combination with a 'Proxy-Require: remove-location' 
> flag would solve all these nicely

So now we are talking about the data: URI being used in non-emergency 
cases?  Certainly if a UAC can put a data: URI in an INVITE, it can also 
put a PIDF-LO in a MIME part.

With regard to the data: URI, how does that work with a CID URI in the 
ruleset-reference?  I would guess that in the emergency case, there 
wouldn't be one.  But in the non-emergency case....

-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