Re: RE: [Geopriv] Does Location-Conveyance have an HTTP dereferencemechanism defined
Andrew Newton <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip,gmane.ietf.geopriv |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > 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 The other case for "don't understand any" could be reject. To reject or ignore or smart-host forward would be a matter of local policy. > > - "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. Very definitely agreed. Thanks for the mental exploration. -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