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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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:[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
