RE: [Geopriv] teasing apart: http as a GEOPRIV using protocol

Is this the loophole everyone has been looking for?

   This document does not describe HTTP as a "using protocol" which, 
   in GeoPRIV terms, is a protocol which "uses (reads or modifies)
   the Location Object".

Or, are we above the scrabbling for loopholes - after all we[1] wrote the rules, we know the reasons for the rules[2], so why are we playing games with definitions?  This is avoiding RFC 3693, and I'm guilty of that[3] (if I recall, you told me to stop).  Why not simply address the requirements?

The point that Martin (D) was making is related to the fact that conveyance doesn't have to specify how a reference is used.  That doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be specified at all, but SIP can treat this as opaque data (except cid:, of course).  

Cheers,
Martin

[1] Taking this in the broadest sense of the term "we".
[2] This is stated, but is often demonstrably untrue.
[3] The concept of "sighting" was seen as a convenient loophole.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Hardie [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, 28 July 2006 11:53 AM
> To: Dawson, Martin; Andrew Newton; IETF SIP List; GEOPRIV
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] teasing apart: http as a GEOPRIV using protocol
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 	Having not seen your note, I already took a stab
> it, along much the same lines you suggest.  Clearly, the attached
> -00 (not yet in the drafts directories) is the barest of bare bones,
> but I thought it might be useful to sketch that out as a contrast
> to some of the real applications which might use HTTP as a
> using protocol.
> 	I believe this also differs from RELO in that it is
> focused on the transport of PIDF-LO, which is slightly different
> from RELO's remit.  But clearly, there are strong connections there.
> 	And if the phrase "strawman" in the title doesn't
> signal that I don't think this is a done piece of work, allow
> this too.
> 			regards,
> 				Ted Hardie
> 
> 
> At 7:50 PM -0500 7/27/06, Dawson, Martin wrote:
> >Hi Andy,
> >
> >I'll take a stab at it. Not that HTTP is a valid *using protocol* but,
> >rather, that the location reference does not actually identify a using
> >protocol and, in fact, HTTP would only be the transport protocol...
> >
> >3693 states:
> >   The "using protocol" is the protocol that uses (reads or modifies)
> >   the Location Object.  A protocol that just transports the LO as a
> >   string of bits, without looking at them (like an IP storage protocol
> >   could do), is not a using protocol, but only a transport protocol.
> >   Nevertheless, the entity or protocol that caused the transport
> >   protocol to move the LO is responsible for the appropriate
> >   distribution, protection, usage, retention, and storage of the LO
> >   based on the rules that apply to that LO.
> >
> >A location reference which provided an HTTP URI indicates that the
> >entity that is going to be used to request the LO is to be communicated
> >with using HTTP. Because of the rules associated with the PIDF-LO, it
> >can be inferred that the entity and whatever semantics are associated
> >with the HTTP communications with that entity will honor the
> >requirements. That is, HTTP is only the transport protocol. An HTTP GET
> >has to be interpreted by the receiving entity within the scope of a
> >using protocol - with its associated set of rules and semantics - which
> >go beyond HTTP and which do respect the geopriv requirements. Indeed,
> >this is generally the case - sending an HTTP GET to an arbitrary IP node
> >can yield any number of results depending what that node actually does.
> >The client needs to understand the purpose of that server in the scope
> >of some higher level protocol.
> >
> >To use another example, a location reference could be an IP address.
> >There's nothing inherent in IP that honors the geopriv rules, but that
> >doesn't stop the reference being valid nor say that the protocol used
> >between a client and that IP address would not honor the rules.
> >
> >The purpose of the SIP conveyance specification is to say how a LO or
> >reference can be transferred from one entity to another using SIP. It's
> >out of scope for a SIP specification to mandate anything about the
> >transport protocol or to infer anything about using protocol implied by
> >that transport. As has been previously mentioned, this would be subject
> >to separate specification and BCP - lest the SIP conveyance
> >specification become overly rigid and subject to unnecessary maintenance
> >and churn.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Martin
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Thursday, 27 July 2006 10:45 PM
> >> To: IETF SIP List; GEOPRIV
> >> Subject: [Geopriv] teasing apart: http as a GEOPRIV using protocol
> >>
> >> There have been a number of opinions regarding HTTP as a using
> >protocol.
> >>
> >> I'd like to know, how many people believe that HTTP requires no or
> >> very little specification to meet the requirements in RFC 3693 and
> >> RFC 3694.  If you believe this, what basis do you have for this
> >> conclusion?  Or do you believe more specification needs to be done,
> >> but it is possible for HTTP to be a GEOPRIV using protocol?
> > >
> >> Finally, how many people believe that HTTP should not be a using
> >> protocol?
> >>
> >> -andy
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Geopriv mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------
> >This message is for the designated recipient only and may
> >contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
> >If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> >immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
> >this email is prohibited.
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------
> >[mf2]
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Geopriv mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

_______________________________________________
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