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-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
