Re: RE: [Geopriv] Does Location-Conveyance have an HTTP dereferencemechanism defined
Henning Schulzrinne <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip,gmane.ietf.geopriv |
|---|---|
| Organization | Columbia University |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> What difference do you see between the proxy behavior when something > is rejected as "flawed" because it contains a newly defined protocol and proxy behavior > when the URL scheme list is open and the proxy encounters one it does not understand? There are three cases, in general: - "flawed" -> reject request with 4xx error - "don't understand any" -> ignore (and maybe special-case route it to some smart entity that might) or generate error - "don't understand one of the schemes" -> ignore and pick one you understand I'm assuming a model where a request may contain multiple location references, just like LoST responses can point to multiple PSAP URI schemes. That, by the way, is the level of detail that the draft might want to have and seems to be leaving somewhat under-defined. > > 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