>At 11:28 AM 9/17/2009, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
>
>>This is the technical side and I am sure there are folks who would
>>disagree with my view since this intented recipient story never got
>>well document in the SIP location conveyance document (see
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-01).
>
>Hannes
>
>Please remind me what this "intented recipient"
>story is that Conveyance has failed to capture.
I noted that in my mail to Dan. Still, I believe there are aspects in the entire retransmission-allowed story unanswered (and Martin raised those as well).
>I'm drawing a blank on this point at the moment, and working
>on -02 at the now.
You should have responded to the comments a long, long time ago already (given that folks are waiting for the document).
Ciao
Hannes
>Thanks
>
>James
>
>
>>Ciao
>>Hannes
>>
>>PS: Please note that there are differences between location and
>>caller-id information as well (from a technical and legal point of
>>view).
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
>> >[mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Dan Mongrain
>> >Sent: 17 September, 2009 19:01
>> >To: GEOPRIV
>> >Subject: [Geopriv] Question regarding <retransmission-allowed> and
>> >calltransfers
>> >
>> >I have just read RFC 5606 regarding using <retransmission-allowed>
>> >and have a question when used in an emergency calling situation.
>> >
>> >An emergency call is made and the PSAP answering the call
>is operated
>> >by the police department. It is determined that police, fire and
>> >ambulance are required to be dispatched. The fire
>department and the
>> >ambulance company can be deemed as separate parties from the police
>> >department (the ambulance company can be a private company).
>> >
>> >1. If the <retransmission-allowed> flag is set to no, is forwarding
>> >the PIDF-LO onto both fire and ambulance a breach of the use of the
>> >flag?
>> >2. The RFC implies that the LR must respect the flag only
>if it has a
>> >legal obligation to do so. Can it be assume that because a caller
>> >has no reasonable expectation to privacy when making an emergency
>> >call (at least in North America) then forwarding of the PIDF-LO is
>> >allowed?
>> >
>> >Thanx,
>> >
>> >Dan Mongrain, ing.
>> >Ingénieur système
>> >Systems Engineer
>> >
>> >dmongrain@plantcml.com
>> >
>> >75 boul. de la Technologie
>> >Gatineau, QC J8Z 3G4
>> >OFFICE 819.778.2053
>> >DIRECT 819.776.7906
>> >FAX 819.772.8905
>> >MOBILE 819.712.0491
>> >www.plantcml.com
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Geopriv mailing list
>> >Geopriv@ietf.org
>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>> >
>>_______________________________________________
>>Geopriv mailing list
>>Geopriv@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
