Subject: [Ecrit] LoST comment: Client request for region data

From: "Hearty, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:00:38 -0700

Section 3 says:

Depending on the query, the result may contain a region where the same
mapping would apply...  The combination of these components are left to
the needs and policy of the jurisdiction where the server is being
operated.

It might be a good idea for the client to ask for the region in its
query rather than (or in addition to) leaving it up to jurisdiction
policy.  For example, nomadic devices might be very interested in region
information per point 2 that follows the above text.  However,
non-nomadic devices may not care about region information.

John Hearty

Level3 Communications

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:31:09 -0500

John,

that's probably a good idea, but I'm in general concerned about 
complexity. The more options, the more code complexity and the more 
options to test. Besides a few extra bytes, there's no harm in 
transmitting the information. Non-nomadic devices are likely to provide 
civic address information; region information for this is likely to be 
as short as a partial PIDF civic address description, such as a town 
name or street address. In all likelihood, we'd be talking about fewer 
than 100 extra bytes here. I'd imagine that for most non-nomadic 
devices, getting a 100 bytes extra per day isn't going to make all that 
much difference.

Henning

Hearty, John wrote:
> the needs and policy of the jurisdiction where the server is being operated.
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>