Subject: [sipcore] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:43:40 -0500

Hi all,

This begins the Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam 
(Location Source Parameter for the SIP Geolocation Header Field).

Please post any feedback to the sipcore mailing list by Friday, August 30.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam/

Thanks!

Jean

---

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 12:57:21 -0500

Hi all,

The WGLC is being extended to Friday, Sept 13, since many people go on 
vacation in August and early September.

Thanks!

Jean

On 8/15/19 2:43 PM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:29:41 -0400

I've followed this draft along the way and most of my issues have 
already been addressed.

I support publication.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 09:53:35 -0500

A few comments:

I disagree that 6442 "suggests that only one location value should be 
conveyed". 6442 doesn't say that at all. It says if you add additional 
things, you become responsible for what they mean and how they're used 
(See the "you break it, you bought it" discussion). I suggest this part 
of the introduction be rephrased to accurately reflect what 6442 says.

In Section 3, This sentence: "The The loc-src parameter is not 
applicable if the administrative domain manages emergency calls in a way 
that does not require location source generating the location" has a 
repeated "The" and does not parse. What does "require location source 
generating the location" mean?

The privacy considerations section should say more about the "priv" part 
of geopriv. A person providing a location with geopriv gets to specify 
policy for the use of a location in addition to the location. As 6442 
tries to point out, a middlebox adding location can't _know_ the 
person's wishes, and can only unilaterally apply its own privacy 
policies. For emergency calling, I know about the argument that relies 
on an implicit agreement assuming that the user would _want_ their 
location conveyed.  But the document is currently silent on this. It 
should be explicit. The claim that this behavior doesn't change the 
privacy considerations in 6442 is a little edgy.

RjS