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

At 02:42 PM 7/27/2006 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
>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?

This is generally what the authors here are proposing, with Geopriv being 
the reviewers.  In SIP Location Conveyance, since it is a SIP doc (and SIP 
is the transport protocol of the Location header where the URIs will go), 
this doc will define SIP-based schemas (sip/sips/pres/cid).  Extensions to 
this RFC (if it ever gets there) can ADD schemas, once those specifications 
pass Geopriv consensus.


>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