Subject: [sipcore] Comments on location-conveyance-01

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:45:33 +0100

James,

Thanks. This has largely addressed the comments I raised in my review of
00 on 2009-07-02. However, I noticed the following minor points:

- There is still a reference to LIS in figure 1 / section 3.

- "Location Inserters have the ability to provide instructional 
   parameters about location it has inserted."
Change "location it has inserted" to "locations they have inserted".

- "LbyR refers to a UA 
   including a location URI in a SIP request header field which can be 
 dereferenced by a Location Recipient to retrieve Alice's Location 
 Object, in the form of a PIDF-LO."
I still think this is confusing - it is the URI that is dereferenced,
not the header field. Also, Alice is not mentioned elsewhere in the
paragraph.
I would prefer:
"LbyR refers to a UA including in a SIP request header field a location
URI that can be dereferenced by a Location Recipient to retrieve a
Location Object, in the form of a PIDF-LO."

- In addition, of course, my concerns in the thread "Confusion over
target..." still exist.

John

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:14:14 -0500

>- There is still a reference to LIS in figure 1 / section 3.

thanks, I thought I got all of the LIS acronyms out, and will take 
this one out as well.

>Change "location it has inserted" to "locations they have inserted".

got it

>Location Object, in the form of a PIDF-LO."

for the most part, I'm eliminated "LbyR" from the doc (as this 
acronym is confusing to some), except in a few cases where I haven't 
figured out yet how to same the same thing without using the acronym.

This is one of those cases, but I'll work on it, probably based on 
what you offered above.

>- In addition, of course, my concerns in the thread "Confusion over

I'm taking in all the comments in the last day before circling back 
and addressing this one - which I plan on doing later today or tomorrow.

Briefly, I think each piece of text you copied needs a bit of the 
surrounding text for context, and are largely (or completely) 
consistent.  My message to follow will talk per quote about that.