Re: [Geopriv] RE: teasing apart: http as a GEOPRIV using protocol

At 09:27 AM 7/27/2006 -0400, Brian Rosen wrote:
>I think HTTP requires some specification.  A raw GET based retrieval of a
>PIDF would be a fairly short RFC, but I think we need that RFC.

I agree with the above now, based on the comments that HTTP has privacy 
concerns raised, and not addressed, in Geopriv.


>While I don't think it's necessary (SIP SUBSCRIBE is sufficient), I don't
>object to defining HTTP as a using protocol in a suitable RFC.
>
>Brian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 8:45 AM
> > To: IETF SIP List; GEOPRIV
> > Subject: [Sip] teasing apart: http as a GEOPRIV using protocol
> >
> > There have been a number of opinions regarding HTTP as a using protocol.
> >
> > I'd like to know, how many people believe that HTTP requires no or
> > very little specification to meet the requirements in RFC 3693 and
> > RFC 3694.  If you believe this, what basis do you have for this
> > conclusion?  Or do you believe more specification needs to be done,
> > but it is possible for HTTP to be a GEOPRIV using protocol?
> >
> > Finally, how many people believe that HTTP should not be a using
> > protocol?
> >
> > -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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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