Re: RE: [Geopriv] Does Location-Conveyance have an HTTP dereferencemechanism defined

At 9:03 PM -0400 7/31/06, Andrew Newton wrote:
>
>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.

I agree with the "HTTP goes in another document" statement of consensus
(and the consensus appears to be that HTTP MUST be a using protocol).

I think "do not constrain the ABNF" is not the right formulation though; I
think the consensus is:  "limit URI schemes to those approved here or in subsequent
documents for this use". 

There are a variety of ways to make the ABNF say the latter, but the key difference
is that it will always be a constrained list, but the list will grow over time. 

I would not be happy with a unconstrained ABNF, as there are lots of URI schemes
that would not make sense here (tag?  info?  opaquelocktocken? mid?  modem?).

I am wearing no hats here.
				Ted


_______________________________________________
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