RE: [Geopriv] RE: [Sip] Allowing sip: in location header not good

From: Thomson, Martin ^lt;Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
Date: Thu Jul 20 2006 - 21:51:00 EDT

Yes, I had forgotten.

That document is informational, saying that location is presence. What I haven't gotten yet, is whether or not this document consequently implies that RFCs 3265/3859/etc... define a using protocol that meets RFC 3693 requirements.

M

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@hxr.us]
> Sent: Friday, 21 July 2006 10:54 AM
> To: Thomson, Martin
> Cc: James M. Polk; Brian Rosen; sip@ietf.org; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] RE: [Sip] Allowing sip: in location header not good
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:55 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> > That is to say - the location conveyance document doesn't cover its
> > use, and nothing else does...yet. When someone does a using-
> > protocol specification for SUB/NOT, then we have a place to
> > describe how to use sip[s]: in the Location header.
>
> I guess we've all forgotten about RFC 4079. Here's the link:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4079.txt
>
> -andy

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:51:00 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 20 2006 - 22:19:09 EDT