Subject: [Ecrit] Phonebcp and LoST responses

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:22:30 -0500

In phonebcp section 8, it says that if a device can't get a LoST
response, it must use its cached value. I'm wondering if we could add
another statement, that if it has no cached value and no LoST response,
it must leave off the route header and just send the Service URN in the
Request URI (or whatever the correct description is)? I think that would
be consistent with the use of LoST only being a should, in the first
place, and the role of the "SP" in phonebcp as being responsible for
being able to handle this situation.
Barbara

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA621

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

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:14:55 -0500

Yeah, probably needed.  Things can go wrong, and no LoST server could be
found, for example.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 5:23 PM
> To: ECRIT
> Subject: [Ecrit] Phonebcp and LoST responses
> 
> 
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
> use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by
> persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
> you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from all computers. GA621
> 
> 
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:50:25 -0600

But if there is no cached LoST URI, what would go in the Route header 
that isn't supposed to be there now?

I think that if there is no LoST URI (learned at any time), there 
SHOULD be no Route header (because there isn't anything valid to put 
into header, save for anything related to outbound).

So, I think something more needs to be said here, but not necessarily 
"no Route header", because not having a URI to put in the header may 
be good enough to conclude there shouldn't be the header. That said, 
there may be a perfectly valid other reason to have a Route header 
for another purpose - unless we've eliminated all other purposes (and 
said so in text).

James

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:08:20 -0500

If you can't get to LoST, then you have no Route header with the PSAP URI,
and the R-URI is the service URN.  "No Route header" means no PSAP URI (LoST
result), not "no Route header of any kind".

Brian

> From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:50 PM
> To: Brian Rosen; 'Stark, Barbara'; 'ECRIT'
> Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Phonebcp and LoST responses
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:33:18 -0600

>result), not "no Route header of any kind".

I agree with this, but wanted to know this was understood - as 
Barbara's suggestion could have meant "No PSAP URI in the Route 
header" or "no Route header of any kind"; and I don't think we can 
say the latter is the case every time.