Hi all,
so why don't emphasize this point in the next draft, saying
: "Proxy server MUST not read messages with
"recipient=endpoint" paramenter setted".
This is my point of you.
What do you think? James?
Regards,
Daniel
----------------------------------
Daniel Grotti
D.E.I.S. - University of Bologna
----------------------------------
Via Venezia, 52
47023 Cesena (FC) - ITALY
----------------------------------
e-mail: daniel.grotti unibo.it
----------------------------------
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofeniggmx.net]
Inviato: gio 22/11/2007 18.35
A: daniel grotti
Cc: Ted Hardie; James M. Polk; IETF SIP List
Oggetto: Re: R: [Sip] a question about IETF draft location
conveyance 09
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. It
does not have
security properties.
Ciao
Hannes
> Regards,
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> Daniel Grotti
> DEIS - Universita' di Bologna
> -----------------------------
> Via Venezia, 52
> 47023 Cesena (FC) - ITALY
> -----------------------------
> email:daniel.grottiunibo.it
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardiequalcomm.com]
> 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://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP
Protocol
> Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for
questions on current sip
> Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the
application of sip
>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
|
