Re: [Sip] RE: [Geopriv] Consensus on changes to location-conveyance

From: Henning Schulzrinne ^lt;hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed Jul 26 2006 - 20:33:16 EDT

On a general note and generalizing a bit on Nadine's message below, I
find the nanny tone of this discussion a bit peculiar ("No, I don't
want you to play with that!"). I can see the technical rationale for
requiring implementation of a limited set of choices for
interoperability, but proactively ruling out other choices seems
highly unusual for an IETF protocol spec. It is clear that only a
relatively small number of people are participating in this
discussion, so declaring consensus to rule out one URL scheme or
another as 'evil bits' seems a bit peculiar.

On Jul 26, 2006, at 2:14 PM, Abbott, Nadine B wrote:

>
> I don't agree that there is a consensus to preclude the use of HTTP.
> I would favor not placing your proposed restriction on the URI scheme
> for expressing a location reference in the SIP location conveyance
> draft; or at least including HTTP as a valid location-reference URI
> type.
>
> Regards,
> Nadine Abbott
>

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:33:16 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 26 2006 - 20:34:00 EDT