Subject: RE: [Geopriv] coming to terms on location by reference

From: "Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:05:41 +0200

When we were analysing the sip-location-coveyance draft between the
editor's, the SIP and GEOPRIV WG chairs, it became clear that the
sip-location conveyance draft went beyond the concepts in RFC 3693. 

Therefore in many ways I would like GEOPRIV to discuss this issue in a
general way, independent of the protocol solution, possibly with a view
to an update of RFC 3693.

Regards

Keith

________________________________

	From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: 13 September 2006 02:02
	To: Dawson, Martin
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: Re: [Geopriv] coming to terms on location by reference

	On Sep 12, 2006, at 6:21 PM, Dawson, Martin wrote:

		Thanks Andy. What is the relationship, then, between the
SIP conveyance

		having started as a Geopriv milestone and the current
discussion? Does

		the former anticipate the latter in any case? That is,
does it not

		indicate acceptance of location by reference already?

	I would not consider location-by-reference for conveyance a
settled matter.

		Or is the

		discussion now focused directly on how the reference is
"discovered" by

		the device and in particular whether it's a function of
the location

		acquisition protocol?

	If by acquisition and discovery you mean what we have been
calling a location configuration protocol, then the two are not
necessarily directly coupled.  It is possible to have an LCP with
references that requires the UAC to dereference its location so that it
may convey that location.

	-andy

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

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:26:40 +0200

Hi Keith,

could you give us more information about your off-line discussions 
between the editor's, the SIP and GEOPRIV WG chairs?
What aspects do you think go beyond the the concepts in RFC 3693?

Ciao
Hannes