RE: [Geopriv] More on the contents of the Location header URI - http

From: Winterbottom, James ^lt;>
Date: Wed Jul 19 2006 - 19:26:27 EDT


I am not sure that I agree with you on this one.
The problem is not in the request protocol at all, the GET works fine
providing the return type is always a PIDF-LO.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosen, Brian []
> Sent: Thursday, 20 July 2006 7:33 AM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: [Geopriv] More on the contents of the Location header URI -
> I started a discussion of what can be in the location header besides a
> cid:.
> We remain convinced that AbsoluteURI is a poor choice; we must be more
> specific, including privacy concerns.
> It is now clear that simply saying "https:" is not enough. There
> be multiple location resolution protocols that use http transport. We
> need something else that would differentiate which one. The simple
> mechanism we proposed would need at least a parameter of some sort.
> After thinking about it for a while, I think the best resolution is
> Andy's suggestion of a registry, used in conjunction with a parameter.
> I'm ambivalent on whether the parameter is a URI parameter or a
> parameter on the Location header. We would define the registry (and
> parameter) in location-conveyance and create one entry (the simple GET
> with PIDF-LO return). It may be, for example, that the proposed L7
> location acquisition protocol defines another http based resolution
> protocol. That document could define another entry in the registry.
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list

This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.

Geopriv mailing list
Received on Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:26:27 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 19 2006 - 19:50:33 EDT