RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-conveyance

In-line..... 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:38 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-conveyance
> 
> I have put out a number of emails on proposed changes to 
> location conveyance.  Some of them have sparked a number of 
> comments.  My summary of consensus on these issues is:
> 
> 1. We proposed to explicitly disallow use of a Data URI, 
> which would allow specification of a Location-by-value in a 
> header.  There was a lot of list traffic on this, currently 
> in the state where Keith asked for a real use case for it.  
> So far, we don't see a use case that cannot be provided by 
> location-by-reference in a header.  If we don't get a good 
> use case, I think consensus is to disallow location-by-value 
> in a header.
> 

I see a problem here.  Location-by-reference is nothing more than 'magic
happens here'!  Please point to a wg item documenting the
location-by-reference mechanism.  How can you state the
location-by-reference will cover all the use cases that the Data URI would
when location-by-reference hasn't even been defined anywhere?  You're
loading up the magic with a lot of assumptions.  Location-by-reference is an
individual submission as a solution to a set of requirements that haven't
been fleshed-out in geopriv.  

I believe that Henning/Hannes also recognized this issue, hence the
suggestion of a Data URI.  Dismissing this suggestion based on an already
accepted non-existent mechanism seems like getting the cart before the
horse.

..........snip

> 6. We proposed to allow sip/sips and pres: in the location 
> header.  I later speculated that if we allow this, it forms a 
> simple way to do location-by-reference, and we could 
> eliminate the raw HTTP(S) Get proposal, with the parameter 
> and registry entirely.  There was some list traffic in favor 
> of this.  Martin Thompson is skeptical that SIP Presence 
> Subscribe/Notify is actually allowed as a geopriv "using 
> protocol".  Several of think that it is.  If we don't get any 
> more comments on this proposal, we will allow sip/sips and 
> pres, not have any
> http(s) resolution text, and not propose a parameter and 
> accompanying registry.

I certainly think it's more prudent to define the dereferencing mechanism
prior to making claims about the protocol.

Do I believe location-by-reference will happen?  Probably, but making
assumptions about the mechanism now is quite premature.

-Marc-

> 
> If this does not reflect your position, please speak up now.
> 

_______________________________________________
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