I agree that we need a generalized way to indicate indirect presence
publish, and would not want to see a specialized mechanism for location.
I do think we could add a parameter to Geolocation which was instructions to
the presence server to fetch the location and include it in the presence
notifications, which would be much better than a new header just for that,
but a generalized indirect publish would be better IMO.
Brian
On 10/26/09 3:54 AM, "Miguel Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia at ericsson.com> wrote:
> James,
>
> Actually, Martin Thomson has been pushing and submitting this draft. We
> (the authors) do not agree with all the content in there, for which we
> had little time to react. So, please, take this document as a mechanism
> to generate discussion more than as the reflected consensus among the
> authors.
>
> Now, I will give you my personal thoughts below, which, as I said, might
> not match other authors'.
>
>
> On 26/10/2009 7:40, James M. Polk wrote:
>> Miguel
>>
>> <I don't like sending message to 2 lists, but your ID crosses both the
>> old SIP and your targeted Geopriv WGs>
>>
>> I have concerns about your "Indirect Presence Publication with SIP" draft.
>>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-geopriv-indirect-publish-01.
>> txt
>>
>>
>> Currently, and pretty much since whatever version of
>>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-01
>> .txt
>> has existed in whatever WG it happened to reside in at the time,
>> Location Conveyance using SIP has included the use of PUBLISH to convey
>> location as a message body, or as a location URI since about, or before
>> 2005. I fail to see or read what you want in your doc that cannot be
>> covered in SIP Location Conveyance.
>
> I understand that the Geolocation header has quite a few similarities
> with what is proposed in the draft. I don't think the Geolocation header
> has means to indicate the presence server "you should de-reference the
> location and insert it in a presence document to be offered to watchers".
>
>>
>> I cannot figure out how you claim usage of the Geolocation is
too limiting.
>
> I have several criticism to the use of a SIP header to convey this
> information. Indirect location is just a particular case of a general
> solution, which is, a presentity wants to publish some information by
> reference not by value. Location is the more straight forward example,
> but we should try to find a general solution.
>
> So, if we agree to pursue a general solution for publication of presence
> information by reference, then I find difficult to think of a solution
> based on a new or existing SIP header. Instead, we should be looking at
> the XML body, either to an extension to the existing one or a new XML
> body that.
>
> If we don't agree with pursuing a general solution, then we should
> carefully look at the existing Geolocation header.
>
>>
>> Additionally, I was forced to change the Location: header to the
>> Geolocation: header due the SIP WG's conclusion it would be confused ,
>> therefore I do not believe you will be able to progress this forward for
>> that additional reason as a Location header-value.
>
> I agree with you, as I said, I don't even think the correct solution is
> to use a header at all. I think the chosen name "Location" is quite
> unfortunate due to historical reasons.
>
> /Miguel
>
>>
>> James
>>
>> BTW -- you use a really old reference for the Location Conveyance ID. It
>> is on the -01 version in SIPCORE now, about to be -02.
>>
>>
