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

It just seems so unlikely to me that geopriv would sanction any URI
dereference mechanism that didn't have an RFC it could inject its review
into.  It's got to be limited to things that are RFCs.  We can argue about
whether it has to be standards track, we can argue about if the limit is
enforced with ABNF, IANA registration or normative wording, but it's gotta
be an RFC.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:42 PM
> To: James M. Polk
> Cc: IETF SIP List; GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Teasing apart: constraints on dereference URI
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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