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

I don't think Brian ever proposed ruling out URI schemes.  What he  
proposed was restricting what can go in it now and a mechanism for  
defining future URI schemes that will be allowed.  We certainly do  
want using protocols passing around PIDF-LOs getting review by GEOPRIV.

-andy

On Jul 26, 2006, at 8:33 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> 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


_______________________________________________
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