At 11:35 AM 11/22/2007, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi Daniel,
daniel grotti wrote:
I believe that if a UA puts "recipient=routing-entity" paramenter
into locationValue, the location information should be read only by
Proxy Server for location-based routing. But if a UA wants its own
location information to be known and seen by endusers, then UA have
to insert the "recipient=endpoints" paramenter. In this case Proxy
server, from my view, should only forward the message to the
destination. UA would just like to bring its own location to an
endpoint, and could not interested in location-based routing.
Does this make sense?
Correct and makes sense.
The recipient parameter is just a hint for processing.
Ted's tone doesn't indicate this is "just a hint", he's making this
seem like a mandatory prevention mechanism. That I think is a fool's
errand, and it is not enforceable in cleartext.
That said, "hinting" that proxies SHOULD NOT view location when
"recipient=endpoint" is not a problem. What I am resisting, is that
UA's don't know if a message might need location to route the message
to the endpoint. Contacting a UAS, like Pizza Hut, might need
location to route the message to the nearest store, the user might
know this, but the UA might not. This would result in a rejection of
the initial message (because location isn't readable by a proxy that
needs the location-info). Would the UA understand that the rejection
means sent "recipient=both" in a subsequent request? Or does the
implementation of that UAC need to prompt the user to acknowledge
this is necessary to complete the call set-up? This seems to me to
be complicated and against normal user behavior, and I'm thinking
about whether or not this is being expected to become normal user
behavior? I think this might be preventing calls to any
store/service that implements a network routing plan based on the UAC
knowing where it is to route the call to the right destination. I
cannot understand how this would be differentiated by users.
It does not have security properties.
I agree
Ciao
Hannes
Regards,
Daniel
-----------------------------
Daniel Grotti
DEIS - Universita' di Bologna
-----------------------------
Via Venezia, 52
47023 Cesena (FC) - ITALY
-----------------------------
email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Ted Hardie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Inviato: gio 11/22/2007 12:36
A: James M. Polk; daniel grotti; IETF SIP List
Oggetto: Re: [Sip] a question about IETF draft location conveyance 09
At 4:18 PM -0600 11/21/07, James M. Polk wrote:
\
Ted -- This header parameter is for a PIDF-LO, yes -- but it
pertains to the SIP WG's expertise in knowing and agreeing with
SIP's ability to foresee the type of topology from UAC to UAS, and
each server (whether there even is one) in between. I'm not so
sure the SIP WG agrees that a UAC can make this determination, and
am soliciting their input here in a broad way.
Can a UAC understand enough about the topology of the Internet to
understand where it is sending a request, including how SIP
servers may or may not act upon that request?
I believe, if the answer is no, the the "recipient=" parameter is
a flawed SIP header parameter.
If the answer is yes, then it stays with no further arguments from me.
I think we have fundamentally different ideas of how much
understanding of the
topology this implies. My view is that the header as currently
specified says
either "This is meant for the person answering the call/taking the
session" or
"This is meant to help get the call through/get the session to the
right responder".
Within the latter case, it requires no knowledge at all of topology; it does
not distinguish among the many different routing elements which might be
trying to make that happen.
A UA that does not care whether it is used for routing can enter "both"
and all is well. A UA that *wants* it to be used this way can
enter "routing-entity".
The availability of "endpoint" as a separate possibility makes sure that
an endpoint can indicate that use by the routing system is not
intended. If the SIP community believes "routing-entity" is too vague
and needs to be broken out, I do not see how the GeoPRIV could object or
why it would want to; certainly this working group should have the final word
on that. But collapsing things so that entering "endpoint" is
not an indicator to the routing entities that they should just pass
things along
would find opposition (at the very least from me). That would break a pretty
fundamental assumption that users are in control of the pidf-lo
distributions.
Hope you have a great Thanksgiving,
Ted
_______________________________________________
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
