RE: Re: [Geopriv] How Location Conveyance specifies the allowedURI

I don't claim there is a consensus on how the protocols are limited, only
that they are.  I don't think you are arguing that to put a URI in the
Location Header makes it a protocol needing geopriv review ("using protocol"
notwithstanding the wording problems).  The text would have to say that,
wouldn't you agree?

The net effect is the same, you can't use any URI in the header, it has to
be a protocol that has had geopriv review as a using protocol in an RFC.

I stated why I think the allowed-URI construction is better; it makes the
grammar precise and explicit.  AbsoluteURI makes the grammar imprecise and
implicit.

What is wrong with what I proposed, and what makes no ABNF restrictions
(absoluteURI) better?  Using absoluteURI means that the using protocol RFC
wouldn't have to have the one line ABNF extension to allowed-URI.  Is that a
benefit?  Is there any other difference?

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:10 PM
> To: Rosen, Brian
> Cc: IETF SIP List; GEOPRIV
> Subject: [Sip] Re: [Geopriv] How Location Conveyance specifies the
> allowedURI
> 
> 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


_______________________________________________
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