Re: RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on HTTP(S) in SIP location-conveyance

At 08:33 PM 7/26/2006 -0400, 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.

A few folks have pointed out unique issues with HTTP and HTTPS wrt privacy 
issues. If those are true, do they need to be addressed in this document to 
satisfy Geopriv?  If yes, should a SIP doc discuss the uniqueness of HTTP's 
security stuff?  Or should that discussion be in an HTTP document?  Brian 
is suggesting that be in a HTTP focused document (likely in Geopriv), with 
the fairly unique ability to extend this document without going through the 
SIP Change process (and that's a bonus).


>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
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