Re: [Geopriv] How Location Conveyance specifies the allowed URI

If HTTP and other mechanisms are not defined in the draft (with which I 
agree), I see no technical reason not to allow other URI schemes in the 
draft ABNF.

At least from the voices I heard, my proposal of not restricting the URI 
scheme has received at least as much support as countervailing 
proposals, so I don't know now how you're counting rough consensus. Or 
are there supervotes?

Rosen, Brian wrote:
> Trying, trying, ....
> 
> It seems we have a very rough consensus that there will be some
> normative text that specifies the allowable URI schemes for what can be
> in the location header.  There are still some voices in opposition to
> it, but I think we've heard all the relevant points we're going to get.
> I had made a specific proposal on this:
> 
> location-param = LAQUOT allowed-URI RAQUOT *( SEMI loc-param ) 
> ;cid-url from RFC2111, http_URL from RFC2616, SIP/SIPS-URI from RFC3261,
> PRES-URI from RFC3859 
> allowed-URI = cid-uri / http_URL / https_URL / SIP-URI / SIPS-URI
>               / PRES-URI
> 

_______________________________________________
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