RE: [Geopriv] Location header name collides with HTTP

James is on vacation, so I want to wait until he returns but I agree with
you. Would "Geolocation" be acceptable?  It does sometimes make you think we
only mean lat/lon, instead of also allowing street address, but it's
technically accurate.

Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:19 AM
> To: SIP working group; GEOPRIV working group
> Subject: [Geopriv] Location header name collides with HTTP
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv


_______________________________________________
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