Re: [Geopriv] Teasing apart: constraints on dereference URI
Andrew Newton <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip,gmane.ietf.geopriv |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
James M. Polk wrote: >> 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? > > I think any IANA Registry here will point back to a Standards Track RFC > that defined the usage and semantics, which your question is not > allowing. Therefore, for what you have immediately above, I disagree. I guess that may have been too much hand waving on my part. So let me ask you this question: if the grammar were to only specify "URI" and no particular kind of URI, yet the kinds of URIs allowed must have to pass some sort of review before their use in the Location header is considered acceptable, would you find favor in this approach? And if so, how would you implement it? -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