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

Let's clarify this further Brian.

I do not want the schema to put a constraint on the URI type.
This is not the same as saying that I expect the document to describe
how to dereference all URI types.


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, 27 July 2006 1:08 PM
To: 'Andrew Newton'; Winterbottom, James
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Abbott, Nadine B'; 'Henning
Schulzrinne'
Subject: RE: [Sip] RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to
location-conveyance

At this point, I think we need some chair guidance and by that I think
it's
a combo of geopriv and sip chairs.

We seem to have a couple of significant open questions.  I think most of
the
other stuff (like the "allow sending to router") will converge.

There seems to be some opposition to allowing sip/sips/pres: in a
Location
Header.  The opposition seems to be that despite 4119, somehow, SIP
(presence subscription) is not a "using protocol".  I "think" a ruling
from
the bench on that would work.

There is also opposition to defining the allowed schemes as a specific
list,
with a defined (easy) extension mechanism.  

Related to that, there are some who want location-conveyance to define
an
HTTP based location dereference mechanism, and on the opposite end, we
have
people saying we haven't even agreed to support any form of
location-by-reference.  

The authors would like to know what to do now.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:58 PM
> To: Winterbottom, James
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Abbott, Nadine B; Henning
Schulzrinne
> Subject: Re: [Sip] RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-
> conveyance
> 
> 
> On Jul 26, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Winterbottom, James wrote:
> 
> > Andy,
> >
> > RFC-4119 says "However, the usage of this location object format is
> > not
> >    limited to presence-using protocols-- any protocol that can
> > carry XML
> >    or MIME types can carry PIDF."
> >
> > It seems to me that restricting the allowed schema in what is
supposed
> > to be a location conveyance specification is in opposition to this
> > statement.
> 
> Did somebody say that HTTP was a presence-using protocol?
> 
> -andy
> 
> ps.  you can find my location with the following reference URIs:
> 
> gopher://fatchance.hxr.us/you-still-have-a-gopher-client
> news:alt.locations.people.secretly-being-watched
> telnet://screen-scrapers.are.us/
> dns:cached-publicly-around-the-world.com?type=HOST
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

_______________________________________________
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