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

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> I'll also re-iterate and rephrase another point made by somebody else 
> before: Restricting URL schemes makes the system non-upgradeable. If a 
> proxy supports "RFC-conveyance" that restricts URLs to a particular 
> scheme list, it will have to reject as flawed a request that contains a 
> newly-defined protocol it doesn't yet know about. Thus, reliably 
> introducing a new protocol would have to wait until every location-aware 
> proxy in the world has been upgraded, which I hope we agree is 
> untenable. The right model is that a proxy that doesn't implement or 
> doesn't want to support (by policy) a certain URL scheme is to ignore 
> it. SIP always has strived to make it possible to evolve systems 
> incrementally, so this type of restriction is well outside established 
> SIP design practice.

Henning, these are separable issues.  Codification of rejection of unknown 
URI schemes and maintenance of a list sanctioned schemes are two different 
things.

-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