Hi Hannes,
I was responding to Brian's message. He basically says: SIPit results show
that the mechanisms needed to implement location conveyance are not widely
implemented yet, we need to tell implementors to hurry it up
I question whether that approach works, and turn it around by asking: why
are these mechanisms not implemented widely?
Personally I believe a significant part of the answer lies in the complexity
of the proposed mechanisms, architecure, etc. So instead of trying to push
the market to adopt the solution that is now on the table, perhaps we should
look into what we can do to lower the barriers for adoption
Regards,
Jeroen
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi Frank,
Hi Jeroen,
Hi Juha,
Hi all
what exactly is your complaint? Are you unhappy about
* XML encoding of location information
* location information carried in the body instead of the header
* number of location shapes (see
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-06.txt)
* the inability of GPS to work in certain environments
* Geopriv location and privacy architecture
* Ecrit emergency services architecture
?
Ciao
Hannes
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:23:42 -0600
Von: "Frank W. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: Cullen Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: \'IETF SIP List\' <[email protected]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Juha
Heinanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], \'Robert
Sparks\' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Betreff: Re: [Sip] SIPit 20 survey
summary
Acknowledged. However, if we're talking about adding messaging
infrastructure to SIP, then the discussion is quite relevant here. I
for one would vote for a simpler mechanism than multipart MIME XML
blah blah blah. With regards to Keith's comments, I would love to
sit down and provide an alternative proposal but I just don't have
the time to do it. With all due respect, I'll implement whatever
the standards committee comes up with, but I don't think its
unreasonable for me or anyone else to express concern about protocol
that is obviously designed by committee and obviously more
complicated that it probably has to be.
FM
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 15:23 -0700, Cullen Jennings wrote:
There has been an incredible amount of work on this topic across
many standard organizations including the IETF. Before people start
in on discussing this in - I strongly suggest they might want to
read some of the requirements, uses cases, drafts, and mailing list
discussions in ECRIT and GEOPRIV. Please keep in mind the charters
of ECRIT/ GEOPRIV/SIP and take the discussion to the right working
group.
On Apr 28, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Jeroen van Bemmel writes:
Especially for the use case of emergency calls, would it not be
wise to
select a much more simple approach/syntax, e.g.:
Emergency-Location: lat=x; lon=y
So no XML, no mime/multipart, as simple as possible (no complex
semantics,
usage-rules etc), something to reduce the barrier of
implementation/deployment, and to reduce the risk for interop
issues?
i fully agree with this. we should follow KISS principle here.
it is highly unlikely that sip ua vendors will even TRY implement
such a complex protocol.
another reason why it will not get implemented is that sip uas
don't know where they are located. gps does not work well indoors
and mobile
operators at least here have refused to make public coordinates of
their
base stations.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
