Teasing apart: constraints on dereference URI

There have been many conversations regarding constraining the URI in the 
Location header.  There have been many positions taken on this subject, 
and this email is intended to understand the various opinions.

Is there anybody who believes that the type of URI in the Location 
header should not be constrained in any way?  In other words, any URI 
scheme may be valid and there should be no attempt to specify the URI 
scheme or associated protocol for dereferencing location.  And if so, do 
you believe location will only be dereferenced via a user clicking on a 
link or by automatic software action?  If the latter, how do you see 
software adapting to multiple URI schemes and their associated protocols?

Is there anybody who believes that the dereference URI should be 
restricted to a specific set of schemes, enforced via ABNF, XML Schema, 
or other grammar specification and re-enforced with MUST/SHOULD 
language?  The intent here being that the set would be definitive or at 
the very least require major effort to update.

Finally, how many people desire a middle ground?  Perhaps where the 
ABNF, XML Schema or other grammar specification allows for any URI 
scheme but there is an IANA registry listing the allowed dereference URI 
schemes and associated protocols?

-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