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 |