At 6:33 PM -0600 11/20/07, James M. Polk wrote:
>Daniel
>
>wow... you nailed this one quickly.
>
>Neither the SIP WG nor Geopriv WG have a position with regard to this. I
>don't like the parameter at all, and have said so from its introduction into
>discussions about putting it in the draft. I don't think it accomplishes much
>more than confusion or a false sense of security by implementors.
Well, I think the Geopriv working group discussed this a great deal, and that
there was reasonable (albeit rough) consensus that it be included. Anyone
interested can certainly see a lively debate on the Geopriv list.
The current text is:
A locationValue has the following independent header parameters,
(snip of other parameters)
the "recipient=" parameter to allow recipients to infer what SIP
element type this locationValue was intended to be for. The
types are
o "endpoint" - meaning the ultimate destination UAS;
o "routing-entity" - meaning SIP servers that route messages
based on the location contents of requests; and
o "both" - meaning this locationValue is to be viewed by both
types of SIP entities.
Not all SIP entities have to read the locationValue within a
Geolocation header, therefore a parameter value of "both" does
not mean "every" SIP element receiving this request, it means all
that care to pay attention to a locationValue. The default
behavior of SIP entities reading the locationValue is that if
this header parameter is NOT present, the intended recipient is
the destination UAS.
A proxy seeing a locationValue with a recipient= tag of
routing-entity or both MAY do location based routing using
the location (as the draft says, it does not have to). A proxy
seeing a locationValue with a recipient=endpoint should understand
that the locationValue was not intended to be used for
location-based routing. The draft is pretty clear that the
privacy rules in RFC 4119; in Section 5 it says pretty bluntly:
Location Recipients MUST obey the privacy and security rules in the
PIDF-LO as described in RFC 4119 regarding retransmission and
retention.
If a proxy is not the intended recipient, as given in this parameter,
it shouldn't be storing or acting on this data, just sending it along.
>That said, a proxy has "ar" capabilities wrt the Geolocation according to
>Table 1. (on page 7), and associated text states this pretty clearly. There is
>no text (not even a hint) that a proxy cannot read a location because
>"recipient=endpoint", therefore it can. I would take this "recipient="
>parameter as a hint to each type of SIP entity that
>
> + if a UAS receives this parameter (meaning in a SIP request with
> a Geolocation header), and it is set to "recipient", the UAS
> shouldn't ignore the location in the request (like it otherwise
> might).
>
> + If a proxy receives this parameter (meaning in a SIP request with
> a Geolocation header), and it is set to "server", the proxy
> shouldn't ignore the location in the request (like it otherwise
> might).
>
>I don't think either indication *ever* means the other SIP entity type cannot
>view the location, based on the parameter.
I don't understand what you mean by "view" here. A proxy putting this to memory
in order to send it along is doing fine; someone doing location-based-routing
when
recipient=endpoint is not doing the right thing (except in the Emergency
Services
case, where all bets are off).
>The only exception I can think of is a Location-by-value hidden by S/MIME
>means no one save who has the decryption key can view the contents of what's
>encrypted.
>
>Does this make sense?
I suggest we continue the conversation in GeoPRIV if we have further discussion
on this particular point.
Ted
>James
>
>At 04:59 AM 11/20/2007, Daniel Grotti wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>I'd like to ask a question about "draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-09.txt".
>>
>>How does Proxy Server have to work when a Geolocation Header contain
>>"recipient=endpoint" parameter ?
>>Does the Proxy server just have to forward the SIP message (without do
>>anything else) or can it read the information conveyed ?
>>thanks,
>>Regards
>>daniel
>>
>>--
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------
>>Daniel Grotti
>>DEIS - University of Bologna
>>Via Venezia, 52 - 47023 Cesena (FC) - ITALY
>>
>>Contacts
>>e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Skype name : Daniel Grotti
>>---------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
