Re: RE: [Geopriv] Does Location-Conveyance have an HTTP dereferencemechanism defined
Andrew Newton <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip,gmane.ietf.geopriv |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Jul 31, 2006, at 6:19 PM, Winterbottom, James wrote: > Not true > > "> This is NOT the discussion of what the ABNF of the location header > looks >> like (although it would NOT have http/https in it for sure if we >> agree >> that an HTTP dereference protocol is a separate draft)." > > This is a discussion on ABNF and what the document contains, and to > that extent they are not separable. > The consensus has been, do not restrict the ABNF, keep the > discussion in the document about references limited. I am failing > to understand why you can't accept that. Brian is right. They are not the same issue, atleast they do not have to be. From where I sit, I think the consensus is: - do not constrain the ABNF - HTTP goes in another document Keep in mind, my hat is labeled "GEOPRIV" and this is a SIP document. -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