Subject: [Ecrit] What is left for LoST before IETF Last Call?

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:48:41 -0700

Since several people have now said that neither of the things on
the table for location hiding require changes to LoST, what are
the issues that prevent us from issuing the current rev and asking
for IETF last call?  If nothing, can we do so?  

If it needs revision later, so be it.  But I'd like to get it done.

				Ted

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Shida Schubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:22:35 -0700

Ted;

 <serviceBoundaryReference> needs to be modified to return location profile
type. As discussed a month ago, currently client can't match the 
location used
in the request to the location used to resolve the mapping.

 SIP location conveyance needs this correlation to flag the location 
used for
routing.

 Regards
  Shida

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:00:45 -0500

At 04:22 PM 6/13/2007, Shida Schubert wrote:

>type. As discussed a month ago, currently client can't match the location used
>SIP location conveyance needs this correlation to flag the location used for
>routing.

Shida

"needs" or "has"?

SIP Conveyance -07 has this flag as a header parameter within the 
Geolocation header.  I'm trying to see if you want something 
different or more there in that doc.

Thanks
James

---

From: Shida Schubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:22:25 -0700

James;

 It is a "need" in LoST not in location conveyance.

 What I am trying to say is that LoST is missing an element to
carry indication as to which location was used for resolution
when boundary is provided by reference (not by value). 

 It's not a problem if  only one location information was used in
the request, but LoST currently allows multiple location
information in request as long as they are of different profiles.

 And because <serviceBoundaryReference> has no way to indicate
which location information(profile) was used, UA can't flag the proper
location on SIP signaling to tell the downstream entities which
location was used for location based routing (LoST).

 Regards
  Shida

James M. Polk wrote:
> Geolocation header.  I'm trying to see if you want something different 
> or more there in that doc.
>
> Thanks
> James
>
>
>> Regards
>>  Shida
>>
>>
>> Ted Hardie wrote:

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:58:11 -0500

Thanks

I'd hoped so, but was just checking to see if I'd missed something in 
what I'm finishing putting into Conveyance-08

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:42:13 -0700

Okay, I'll talk to Henning, Andy, and Hannes via email and we'll try
to get something into a revision real soon now.  Any suggested text
for this will be greeted warmly.

Any *other* issues we need to fix before moving forward?
				Ted

At 10:58 PM -0500 6/13/07, James M. Polk wrote:
>I'd hoped so, but was just checking to see if I'd missed something in what I'm finishing putting into Conveyance-08
>
>>>SIP Conveyance -07 has this flag as a header parameter within the Geolocation header.  I'm trying to see if you want something different or more there in that doc.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>James
>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>> Shida
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ted Hardie wrote:

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:24:09 -0400

Since this is needed for any request with a location object, I added  
a token to the location object, as in

<location id="627b8bf819d0bad4d" ...

and a <locationUsed id="627b8bf819d0bad4d"/>

element for responses.

Henning