I have posted the comments from WGLC on draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance at:

http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/reviews/location-conveyance/index.html

Please let me know if I have missed any comments. 

There will be a review conference call of these comments on:

Wednesday 25th April at

	1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Central US time
	2:00 pm - 4:00 pm Eastern US time
	7:00 pm - 9:00 pm UK time
	8:00 pm - 10:00 pm Central Europe time

Bridge details:

Chairperson Name:  KEITH DRAGE
Access Phone Number:  8007718734
International Access Phone Number:  +1 6477233953 7-Digit Access Code:  5776249 

While this call is in no sense restricted, this call is for people who have reviewed the document. If you think you qualify, and have not sent comments that are included above, or indeed reviewed and had no comments, then please send me a mail indicating this.

Agenda:

1)	Roll call

2)	Agenda bash - lets not spend too much time moving things around, concentrate on what is missing, or what does not need to be discussed. Note that the comments listed below are only what are regarded as the more major issues meriting collective discussion and review - I expect the editors to use their initiative on many of the others.

3)	Methodology
	First discussion of key points. 
	If new comments arise from discussion, please identify verbally and ensure they are documented.
	Comments discussed can have resolution agreed in the call, or defer, or take to list, or leave to authors to make a judgement.

4)	
Issues relating to multiple locations

	Comments: 2, 3, (66), 78, 94, 96, 153, 164

	Key questions: 
	Do we want multiple locations?	If there are multiple locations, which should be used?
	If a 424 is returned, which location does it relate to?

	Which location does the warning refer to?
	In what circumstances can multiple locations cause a call to fail - or can one be used and ignore the rest?
	If you have a location by value, do you need to also resolve any location by reference?
	Anything different for multiple locations in responses?

5)	Security issues

	Comments: 21, 27, 117A, 129C, 129D, 168, 181A, 181B, 137
	Key questions:
	Any issues with mandating multipart MIME?
	Signing versus encryption issues?
	Document security issues when retrieving location by reference?
	Are mechanisms different for LbyrR and LbyV?
	Is security considerations section adequate?
	Are self signed certificates out of scope?
	Is mandating a retry without TLS in scope?

6)	Emergency issues

	Comments: 129B, 167A, 169
	Key questions:
	Should we cover emergency at all in this document?

7)	Response usage

	Comments: 29, 150
	Key questions:
	Is it allowed in responses, and if so, what are the procedures for error handling?
	What are the associated Require: and Supported: procedures?

8)	Error handling issues

	Comments: 30, 79, 84, 85, 110, 147
	Key questions:
	Dialog usage - does 424 clear the dialog or just the specific usage?
	Can Warning only appear in 424?
	Do we need all the warnings given?
	Do we need 701?
	What mechanism should we use to indicate URL schemes?
	Do we always return an error, or can we just ignore a problem?	

9)	Method usage

	Comments: 62, 69, 73, 74
	Key questions:
	INFO?
	Mid call location updates use what mechanism?
	REFER?
	PUBLISH?
	BYE?

10)	Body issues

	Comments: 159
	Key questions:
	What additional information is needed to describe bodies?

11)	PIDF-LO usage

	Comments: 121, 153A
	Key questions:
	Point usage deprecated?
	Proxy usage - what can proxy say about this location - is this in scope of this document or does GEOPRIV need to handle it?

12)	URI issues

	Comments: 7, 64
	Key questions:

13)	Routeing query allowed issues

	Comments: 11
	Key questions:

14)	Retransmission allowed issues

	Comments: 61A
	Key questions:
	Is mechanism needed?

15)	Terminology usage

	Comments: 1, 19, 43A, 101A, 116B, 129A
	Key questions
	Are "by value" and "by reference" the appropriate terms?
	Is LbyR a using protocol?
	Are there any circumstances where we need to talk about LIS rather than LS?

16)	Pull mechanisms

	Comments: 25, 144A
	Key questions:
	Are the mentioned pull mechanism valid, given that we don't cover them at all?