Re: [Geopriv] Teasing apart: constraints on dereference URI

At 01:27 PM 7/27/2006 -0500, James M. Polk wrote:
>At 10:25 AM 7/27/2006 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
>>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.
>
>Andy - I vote for the scheme be defined within the using protocol's 
>(general) area.
>
>For example, if a SIP document defines SIP and

I meant "as" here instead of "and"

>  a Geopriv using protocol, then it should define one or more schemas near 
> SIP (SIP, SIMPLE, MMUSIC).  This does result in sip/sips/pres/cid being 
> in the SIP using protocol doc.
>
>If there were an HTTP document promoting HTTP being a Geopriv using 
>protocol, that document should be the one defining HTTP area schemas, 
>meaning http/https.
>
>and so on for other protocols
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>>-andy
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Geopriv mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>_______________________________________________
>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