Location header name collides with HTTP
Henning Schulzrinne <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip,gmane.ietf.geopriv |
|---|---|
| Organization | Columbia University |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Just to throw another curveball: I don't know why nobody has noticed this before, but the definition of Location in draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-03 directly conflicts with the HTTP usage of the same header name (section 14.30 of RFC 2616). While the two name spaces are nominally different, I think it is a fundamentally bad idea to collide with the HTTP name space and re-use the same header name for dramatically different content. (Among other reasons, we might want to use the same (geo/civic) location mechanism in RTSP or even HTTP later, and it would be really confusing to have different names in each protocol.) Since there's no shortage of English words, this should be changed. By the way, we had this discussion early on in SIP, yielding the Contact header (instead of, as it happens, Location, although the concepts were much closer). For some reason, HTTP seems to have survived without disallowing the "fax" URI scheme... Henning _______________________________________________ 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