RE: [Geopriv] RE: Allowing sip: in location header not good

Yes, I had forgotten.

That document is informational, saying that location is presence.  What I haven't gotten yet, is whether or not this document consequently implies that RFCs 3265/3859/etc... define a using protocol that meets RFC 3693 requirements.

M

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, 21 July 2006 10:54 AM
> To: Thomson, Martin
> Cc: James M. Polk; Brian Rosen; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] RE: [Sip] Allowing sip: in location header not good
> 
> 
> On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:55 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> > That is to say - the location conveyance document doesn't cover its
> > use, and nothing else does...yet.  When someone does a using-
> > protocol specification for SUB/NOT, then we have a place to
> > describe how to use sip[s]: in the Location header.
> 
> I guess we've all forgotten about RFC 4079.  Here's the link:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4079.txt
> 
> -andy

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip