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

On Jul 26, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

>> In other words, it would appear that the list of URIs allowed is  
>> HTTPS or CID (though this doc SHOULD be more explicit).  data: is  
>> not mentioned.
>> This means that a PIDF-LO with a CID reference cannot be converted  
>> to a data: URI.
>
> At best, SHOULD NOT. This issue was never discussed during the 4119  
> discussion, as far as I can tell, and there doesn't seem to be  
> technical reason why it couldn't be.

It was discussed at length at our interim meeting in DC, and nobody  
ever mentioned anything but HTTPS and CID.

> In any event, for the case at hand, namely proxy insertion, the  
> problem is exactly the same: both both (only) use HTTPS. I'm  
> unclear what ruleset we can usefully specify today. The common  
> policy set is not particularly useful for routing, for example, and  
> not really meant for recipients of location information in any  
> event. Thus, at least today, this is, at best, some free-text  
> legalese.

This is yet another rule, adding more complexity.  You can pass by  
value either via MIME or data: URI.  If you pass by value using the  
data: URI, you have to restrict ruleset references.

-andy

_______________________________________________
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