Re: RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-conveyance
Henning Schulzrinne <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip,gmane.ietf.geopriv |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On a general note and generalizing a bit on Nadine's message below, I
find the nanny tone of this discussion a bit peculiar ("No, I don't
want you to play with that!"). I can see the technical rationale for
requiring implementation of a limited set of choices for
interoperability, but proactively ruling out other choices seems
highly unusual for an IETF protocol spec. It is clear that only a
relatively small number of people are participating in this
discussion, so declaring consensus to rule out one URL scheme or
another as 'evil bits' seems a bit peculiar.
On Jul 26, 2006, at 2:14 PM, Abbott, Nadine B wrote:
>
> I don't agree that there is a consensus to preclude the use of HTTP.
> I would favor not placing your proposed restriction on the URI scheme
> for expressing a location reference in the SIP location conveyance
> draft; or at least including HTTP as a valid location-reference URI
> type.
>
> Regards,
> Nadine Abbott
>
_______________________________________________
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