At 2:32 AM +0200 4/27/07, Drage, Keith \(Keith\) wrote:
>(As SIP WG chair)
>
>During the review of the WGLC comments, we have identified some issues
>where we need consensus calls on the list. These are in one call per
>message.
>
>There is an amount of text (primarily section 6) within
>draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance related to emergency calls. It is
>proposed to remove this text on the basis that there are charter items
>within the IETF ECRIT working group that fully specify this application
>of location conveyance to this particular purpose. The editor's will
>make sure that all the removed text is reflected in appropriately in the
>concerned ECRIT documents.
I don't think we can answer this question without the actual bits to
be removed. Can you cite in more detail?
I'd also like to point out that section 6 has a number of elements
where the baseline assumption of SIP and ECRIT may differ. This,
for example:
Thus S/MIME protection of location MUST NOT
be used. TLS protection of location SHOULD be used, however, if
establishment of the TLS connection fails, the call set-up
operation, including location conveyance, MUST be retried without
TLS.
The context in SIP and the larger document here makes it clear
that "S/MIME protection of location" means encrypting the location,
rather than signing it. But location signing is a topic of interest to
ECRIT, and the resulting baseline assumptions may be different.
Increased clarity on exactly what is meant will hopefully result,
but remember this will end up in some document with a bunch of
other context to it.
I also believe that this section:
Both the "retransmission-allowed" and "routing-query-allowed" SHOULD
be set to "yes". Querying for routing may be performed by proxies
providing a routing service for emergency calls even if
retransmission-allowed or routing-query-allowed is set to "no" or is
not present. Proxies routing on the location MUST set the
"message-routed-on-this-uri" parameter.
would have to be substantially re-written to fit into phonebcp (presuming
that is where it lands). To make sense there, I believe it would have to repeat
context from location-conveyance (even with the existing normative
reference). That's always an invitation to things getting out of synch
in the future, and has to be considered.
Put another way, I don't think you're going to be able to just shift
the text en masse and be done.
regards,
Ted
>We will assume that this removal represents WG consensus unless we hear
>otherwise from the WG in 7 calendar days from the posting of this
>message.
>
>Regards
>
>Keith
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
_______________________________________________
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
