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

We have spent a couple of YEARS working on this draft, it has always
considers location based routing one of its uses, and at this point, I think
this idea is not interesting.

Does anyone else besides Jeroen support a different mechanism to convey
location for routing than one for conveying location to the endpoint?

I remind you that many (but not all) location based routing use cases DO
involve conveyance of the location to an endpoint.  The usual case we use
for location based routing besides the emergency case is the pizza delivery
scenario.  You use location to route to the correct store, and the store
gets your location to deliver the pizza.  You don't ALWAYS want to do this,
of course, but it is very common.

At this point, we need fewer options (not only in the draft, in the SIP
world), not more.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeroen van Bemmel [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:52 PM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: IETF SIP List; GEOPRIV; Henning Schulzrinne
> Subject: Re: [Sip] RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-
> conveyance
> 
> > I understood your previous comment as a request to specify a different
> > location information format (not PIDF-LO) for location-based routing.
> 
> That depends, I would be happy with a mapping of PIDF-LO onto callee
> capabilities / caller prefs. Would that be considered a different format?
> 
> Jeroen
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv


_______________________________________________
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