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

Hi Henning,

Yes, it was intended as a new angle. And you are right that 'zip' is 
probably not enough to cover all cases, my intention in providing the 'geo' 
feature tree as example was to suggest that GEOPRIV might define other 
feature parameters in this space ("country","state" etc are some obvious 
candidates, and "geo.lat" and "geo.lon" perhaps?)

To me, the "emergency calling" use case should indeed be viewed as a 
scenario in which "location conveyance" and "location based routing" are 
combined.

Regards,

Jeroen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henning Schulzrinne" <[email protected]>
To: "Jeroen Van Bemmel" <[email protected]>
Cc: "IETF SIP List" <[email protected]>; "GEOPRIV" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip] RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-conveyance


>> LBR is better handled using caller prefs/callee capabilities (eg  define 
>> +geo.zip, not using PIDF at all for simplicity)
>>
>
> This is completely new suggestion; emergency calling is nothing but a 
> special case of location-based routing. I agree that it is useful to 
> separate location information for routing from that shown to end  systems, 
> as they often have different resolution needs. (To route to  the right 
> branch of your pizza delivery franchiser, you may only need  a zip code, 
> but for delivery, you need the full street address. The  practical problem 
> is that such boundaries don't always agree with zip  codes or any other 
> higher-level geographic unit, such as state,  county or town.)
>
> 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