Re: Allowing sip: in location header not good

Brian Rosen wrote:
> I think that ship has sailed.  PIDF-LO is precisely defined in presence, and
> we don't need any documents that further describe how location is conveyed
> in a presence subscription.  All this document would do is describe how you
> might go about specifying a presence uri that would be a little less general
> (provide less information) than the one you would get by using the "From:"
> URI.  The ruleset for this presence uri would be different from the more
> general uri.  
>
> Now, it does occur to me that if we allow sip/sips/pres, then we have a
> minimal resolution protocol for location by reference.  It might be then
> acceptable to drop the whole raw GET idea completely, and leave that to the
> L7 protocol.  I kind of like that idea, because the raw GET is really
> defining a whole new protocol and I don't think we want to, or need to, do
> that in this document.  We brought it up because without at least a minimal
> dereference solution, the mechanism does not meet the requirements.  A
> presence subscription would do that, with no need for more.
>
> And if we do that, we could drop the resolution-protocol parameter and
> registry, because sip/sips/pres doesn't need it.
>   

Brian's words here are the first to make me say "Aha! I think we have 
something new" that I've read so far this evening. There may be some 
merit in this approach -- please consider it carefully.

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
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