Skip to main content

Implications of 'retransmission-allowed' for SIP Location Conveyance
RFC 5606

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-12-20
02 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document explores an ambiguity in the interpretation of the <retransmission-allowed> element of the Presence Information …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document explores an ambiguity in the interpretation of the <retransmission-allowed> element of the Presence Information Data Format for Location Objects (PIDF-LO) in cases where PIDF-LO is conveyed by the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). It provides recommendations for how the SIP location conveyance mechanism should adapt to this ambiguity.

Documents standardizing the SIP location conveyance mechanisms will be Standards-Track documents processed according to the usual SIP process. This document is intended primarily to provide the SIP working group with a statement of the consensus of the GEOPRIV working group on this topic. It secondarily provides tutorial information on the problem space for the general reader. This memo provides information for the Internet community.')
2015-10-14
02 (System) Notify list changed from geopriv-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-geopriv-sip-lo-retransmission@ietf.org to (None)
2009-08-25
02 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2009-08-25
02 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5606' added by Cindy Morgan
2009-08-24
02 (System) RFC published
2009-06-09
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2009-06-08
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2009-06-08
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-06-08
02 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-06-08
02 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-06-08
02 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-06-05
02 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-06-04
2009-06-04
02 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-06-04
02 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-06-04
02 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-06-04
02 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-06-04
02 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2009-06-03
02 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2009-06-03
02 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-06-03
02 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-06-03
02 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-06-03
02 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-05-31
02 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-05-31
02 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
1. Introduction

[...]

  The Session Initiation Protocol [RFC3261] is one proposed Using
  Protocol for PIDF-LO.

This sentence doesn't read …
[Ballot comment]
1. Introduction

[...]

  The Session Initiation Protocol [RFC3261] is one proposed Using
  Protocol for PIDF-LO.

This sentence doesn't read well.

2. Problem Statement

[...]

  Bear in mind, however, that <retransmission-allowed> is not intended
  to provide any protocol-level mechanism to prevent unauthorized
  parties from learning location through means like eavesdropping.  It
  is merely a way to express the preferences of the Rule Maker to the
  LR.

LR is not defined. I think it should be defined after introducing Location Recipient in the previous paragraph of the same section.

The same comment about first use of LS later in the same section.
2009-05-19
02 Cullen Jennings State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Cullen Jennings
2009-05-19
02 Cullen Jennings Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-06-04 by Cullen Jennings
2009-05-19
02 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings
2009-05-19
02 Cullen Jennings Ballot has been issued by Cullen Jennings
2009-05-19
02 Cullen Jennings Created "Approve" ballot
2009-05-12
02 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-05-02
02 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn
2009-05-02
02 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn
2009-05-01
02 Amanda Baber IANA comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand
this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2009-04-28
02 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-04-28
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-04-27
02 Cullen Jennings Last Call was requested by Cullen Jennings
2009-04-27
02 Cullen Jennings State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Cullen Jennings
2009-04-27
02 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-04-27
02 (System) Last call text was added
2009-04-27
02 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-04-23
02 Cullen Jennings State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Cullen Jennings
2009-04-21
02 Amy Vezza
The GEOPRIV working group requests publication of
draft-ietf-geopriv-sip-lo-retransmission-02 as Informational.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed …
The GEOPRIV working group requests publication of
draft-ietf-geopriv-sip-lo-retransmission-02 as Informational.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The Document Shepherd for this document is Richard Barnes. The Shepherd
has personally reviewed this version of the document, and believes it is
ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

This document has been the subject of a thorough and constructive
discussion within the GEOPRIV working group, which included input from
the SIP working group. I have no concerns about the level of review
this document has received.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

I do not believe that this document requires any special review.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

I have no special concerns about this document. There have been no IPR
disclosures related to the document.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

There is strong consensus in the working group around this document,
grounded in agreement that the privacy considerations discussed in this
document follow from the general Geopriv model.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

I am not aware of any extreme discontent or potential appeals related to
this document.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

I have verified that the the document satisfies all ID nits. There are
no nits to correct except for one improperly formatted reference. No
formal reviews are necessary.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are split into normative and informative; all references are
informative.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA considerations section exists; consistent with the remainder of
the document, the document makes no request of IANA, and correctly
follows RFC 5226 guidelines by indicating this.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

The document contains no formal language.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document explores an ambiguity in the interpretation of the
<retransmission-allowed> element of the Presence Information Data Format
for Location Objects (PIDF-LO) in cases where PIDF-LO is conveyed by the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). It provides recommendations for how
the SIP location conveyance mechanism should adapt to this ambiguity.

Working Group Summary

This document was produced in order to express the consensus of the
GEOPRIV working group on a privacy issue raised by location conveyance
in the SIP protocol. There is thus strong consensus within GEOPRIV
around the core privacy recommendations in the document.

Document Quality

The document has been reviewed by key participants from the GEOPRIV,
SIP, and privacy community, and its recommendations have been
implemented in draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-13.
2009-04-21
02 Amy Vezza Draft Added by Amy Vezza in state Publication Requested
2009-03-09
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-sip-lo-retransmission-02.txt
2008-10-27
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-sip-lo-retransmission-01.txt
2008-07-07
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-sip-lo-retransmission-00.txt