We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byTyler Sanchez
Modified over 3 years ago
1 © 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. © 2004, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Location Conveyance in SIP draft-ietf-sipping-location-requirements-02 James M. Polk Brian Rosen 11 Nov 04
© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 2 2 © 2004, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 2 Location Conveyance Goal is to define SIP as an RFC3693 Using Protocol Incorporate the Geopriv LO into SIP by – adhering to all requirements of 3693 – add necessary requirements unique to SIP for location conveyance
© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 3 3 © 2004, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 3 Types of Location Conveyance in SIP User Agent to User Agent – i.e. person to person, UA to Location service User Agent to Proxy Server – i.e. message routing based on location of User Agent Client (the initiator of a message) – this has one use-case identified: 911/112-type emergency communications
© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 4 4 © 2004, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 4 What changed since version -01 Several things changed in this version: added requirements for 2 new 4XX error responses (Bad Location Information) and (Retry Location Body) added "Bad Location Information" as section 8.6 added "Retry Location Body " as section 9.3 added support for session mode to cover packet sizes larger than the single packet limit in the message body added requirement for a SIP entity to SUBSCRIBE to another for location information
© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 5 5 © 2004, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 5 added SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY as section 8.5 added requirement to have user turn off any tracking created by subscription removed doubt about which method to use for updating location after a INVITE is sent (update) removed use of reINVITE to convey location cleaned up which method is to be used if there is no dialog existing (message) What changed since version -01 II
© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 6 © 2004, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 clarified that UAs include element of PIDF-LO when placing an emergency call (to inform ERC who supplied Location information) added to IANA Considerations section for the two new 4XX level error responses requested in the last meeting What changed since version -01 III
© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 7 7 © 2004, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 7 Existing Open Issues Should a Proxy somehow label its location information in the proposed 425 (Retry Location Body) message? – a PIDF-LO question? Still have not determined if/how a UAC can request the UAS return its location in a 1XX or 2XX response – maybe just use a SUB/NOT (if supported)? Still have not determined if a Redirect model should be accounted for (if the 3XX response includes LI, does that get included in the new/next Request by the UAC?)
© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 8 8 © 2004, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 8 This document needs to be renamed From section 9.2 (Emergency call with an updated location), if Alice does venture into another coverage area, how does her new UPDATE with new location get sent to a second (and now appropriate) ERC-2? Existing Open Issues II
© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 9 9 © 2004, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 9 New Open Issues (thanks Cullen) Suggestion for WG to make multipart message bodies mandatory If you can put an LO in a 200, what happens if the 200 is too big? how does a proxy tell the UAS what LO to put in the answer? Problems with thinking Proxies have to remember that the last request failed (for whatever reason), but to *not* fail the subsequent request – proxies shouldnt fail what it shouldnt fail this doesnt work if the initial try is with security, and the second is without due to the first failure Allow situation: A to send an LO to B, but it is only viewable by a proxy in between and *not* B
© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 10 © 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 10 © 2004, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 10 Include a requirement for an intermediary to include a location indication about the UAC, but not from the UAC – just brought up, dont have this scoped completely (yet) smells like adding a body as one option... New Open Issues (thanks Keith)
© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 11 © 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 11 © 2004, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 11 Whats next? Solve open issues through discussion and Chair/AD guidance Need to (start, then) finish sections on SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY and PUBLISH If creating the Response Codes is acceptable, that makes this a SIP item, right? One idea is to break this ID into a Requirements ID (in SIPPING) and a Solutions ID (in SIP) – because the requirements are 98% done
Location Conveyance in SIP draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-01 James M. Polk Brian Rosen 2 nd Aug 05.
1 © 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. VVT _05_2001_c1 Resource Priority Header draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-05 James M Polk Henning.
SIP Session-ID draft-kaplan-sip-session-id-02 Hadriel Kaplan.
Slide #1 Nov 6 -11, 2005SIP WG IETF64 Feature Tags with SIP REFER draft-ietf-sip-refer-feature-param-00 Orit
SIP Events: Changes and Open Issues IETF 50 / SIP Working Group Adam Roach
SIMPLE Drafts Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft. Presence List Changes Terminology change Presence List Information Data Format –Provides version, full/partial.
Proposed Fix to HERFP* (Heterogeneous Error Response Forking Problem) Rohan Mahy * for INVITE transactions.
Draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-09 IETF70 – Vancouver James Polk.
SIP wg Items Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft Caller Preferences: Changes Discussion of Redirects –Previous draft only proxy –Nothing different for redirect.
July 28, 2009BLISS WG IETF-751 Shared Appearance of a SIP AOR draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-03 Alan Johnston Mohsen Soroushnejad Venkatesh Venkataramanan.
A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol User Agent Profile Delivery (draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework-11) SIPPING – IETF 68 Mar 19, 2007 Sumanth.
SIP PUBLISH Method Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
Request History – Solution Mary Barnes SIP WG Meeting IETF-57 draft-ietf-sip-history-info-00.txt.
Diameter SIP Application 58th IETF meeting draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app-00.txt.
Name that User John Elwell Cullen Jennings Venkatesh Venkataramanan
1 Diameter SIP application draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app-03.txt 60 th IETF meeting August 3 rd, 2004 Status.
SIP working group IETF#70 Essential corrections Keith Drage.
SIP Interconnect Guidelines draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines-02 David Hancock, Daryl Malas.
July 28, 2008BLISS WG IETF-721 The Multiple Appearance Feature using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) draft-johnston-bliss-mla-req-02 Alan Johnston.
Extending the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Reason Header for Applications draft-mohali-sipcore-reason-extension-application-00 draft-mohali-sipcore-reason-extension-application-00.
Real-Time Streaming Protocol draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-01.txt Magnus Westerlund.
Lab Telemàtica II: VoIP 2008/2009 Anna Sfairopoulou Page 1 Advanced services with SIP.
NEMO Basic Support update IETF 61. Status IANA assignments done Very close to AUTH48 call Some issues raised recently We need to figure out if we want.
Indication of Terminated Dialog draft-holmberg-sipping txt Christer Holmberg NomadicLab Ericsson.
SIP and Instant Messaging. SIP Summit SIP and Instant Messaging What Does Presence Have to Do With SIP? How to Deliver.
Fall IM 2000 Introduction to SIP Jonathan Rosenberg Chief Scientist.
SAML for SIP Hannes Tschofenig, Jon Peterson, James Polk, Douglas Sicker, Marcus Tegnander.
March 20th, 2001 SIP WG meeting 50th IETF SIP WG meeting Overlap signalling handling
1 RFC4028 Session Timer in the Session Initiation Protocol Speaker ： Ying Shun Lin Adviser ： Quincy Wu.
SIP Interconnect Guidelines draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines-01 David Hancock, Daryl Malas.
ECRIT - Getting Certain URIs, and Alternatives to Getting Emergency Dialstring(s) draft-polk-ecrit-lost-server-uri-00 draft-polk-dhc-ecrit-uri-psap-esrp-00.
End-to-middle Security in SIP draft-ono-sipping-end2middle-security-04 Kumiko Ono IETF62.
Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies (ecrit) Hannes Tschofenig, Marc Linsner IETF 66, Montreal, June 2006.
SIP Performance Benchmarking draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-01 draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-01 March 22, 2010 Prof. Carol Davids, Illinois Inst. of Tech.
- 1 -P. Kyzivatdraft-sipping-gruu-reg-event-00 Reg Event Package Extensions draft-sipping-gruu-reg-event-00 IETF64 Nov-2005.
SIPPING Drafts Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft. Conferencing Package Issues Only one – scope Depends on broader work in conferencing May include –Participant.
Draft-elwell-sipping- redirection-reason-00 Author: John Elwell
SIP, Presence and Instant Messaging. Spring PIM 2001 SIP, Presence and IM Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Developed in mmusic Group.
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format (CLF) IETF 74, March 2009, San Francisco, CA (USA) Vijay K. Gurbani Eric Burger Humberto Abdelnur.
SIP PUBLISH draft-ietf-simple-publish-01 Aki Niemi
Making SIP NAT Friendly Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
Session-Independent Policies draft-ietf-sipping-session-indep-policy-01 Volker Hilt Gonzalo Camarillo
SIP working group status Keith Drage, Dean Willis.
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) By: Zhixin Chen.
Rfc4474bis-01 IETF 90 (Toronto) STIR WG Jon. First principles (yet again) Separating the work into two buckets: 1) Signaling – What fields are signed,
SIP issues with S/MIME and CMS Rohan Mahy SIP, SIPPING co-chair.
The Session Initiation Protocol - SIP © Internation Institute of Telecommunications inc.,
1 SIPREC draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-00 An Architecture for Media Recording using SIP IETF SIPREC INTERIM – Sept 28 th 2010 Andrew Hutton.
IM May 24, 2000 Introduction to SIP Jonathan Rosenberg Chief Scientist.
SIP file directory draft-garcia-sipping-file-sharing-framework-00.txt draft-garcia-sipping-file-event-package-00.txt draft-garcia-sipping-file-desc-pidf-00.txt.
© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.