Hi Keith, I also suggested to make use of the PIDF-LO profile document for this purpose in the past. See, for example, http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg15002.html
Ciao Hannes -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Datum: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:24:35 -0500 Von: "Winterbottom, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> An: "Drage, Keith \\(Keith\\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "IETF SIP List" <sip@ietf.org> Betreff: RE: [Sip] Location-conveyance: ISSUE #3 - multiple locations > Hi Keith, > > The GEOPRIV PIDF-LO profile document makes suggestions about including > and interpreting multiple locations. This may be the right document to > reference with regards to this topic. > > Cheers > James > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, 29 April 2007 6:00 AM > > To: IETF SIP List > > Subject: [Sip] Location-conveyance: ISSUE #3 - multiple locations > > > > (As SIP WG chair) > > > > During the review of the WGLC comments, we have identified some issues > > where we need consensus calls on the list. These are in one call per > > message. > > > > We had a number of comments that it was not clear whether a message > > could contain multiple locations, and if they were, what were the > > procedures. > > > > On the call we identified what we believe the way forward in this > area, > > which is summarised by the following statements: > > > > - location conveyance should support the delivery of multiple > > locations; > > > > - the document will make no recommendations as to how the > > recipient chooses > > which location to use. This is regarded as specific to the using > > application, > > and therefore beyond the scope of the protocol extension; > > > > - the recipient should attempt to make use of all the locations > > given, and > > should only respond with a 424 response if it is unable to use any of > > those > > locations. This includes resolving all and any locations by reference; > > > > - as a result of the above, any 424 response is a collective > > statement about > > all the locations given in the request rather than any specific > location > > in the > > request. > > > > We will assume that this represents WG consensus unless we hear > > otherwise from the WG in 7 calendar days from the posting of this > > message. > > > > Obviously if the WG has an alternative view, some proposal of the > > alternative way forward and the expected impact on the text would be > > entirely appropriate. > > > > Regards > > > > Keith > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message is for the designated recipient only and may > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of > this email is prohibited. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > [mf2] > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
