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

From: Dean Willis ^lt;dean.willis@softarmor.com>
Date: Thu Jul 20 2006 - 22:14:40 EDT

Brian Rosen wrote:
> I think that ship has sailed. PIDF-LO is precisely defined in presence, and
> we don't need any documents that further describe how location is conveyed
> in a presence subscription. All this document would do is describe how you
> might go about specifying a presence uri that would be a little less general
> (provide less information) than the one you would get by using the "From:"
> URI. The ruleset for this presence uri would be different from the more
> general uri.
>
> Now, it does occur to me that if we allow sip/sips/pres, then we have a
> minimal resolution protocol for location by reference. It might be then
> acceptable to drop the whole raw GET idea completely, and leave that to the
> L7 protocol. I kind of like that idea, because the raw GET is really
> defining a whole new protocol and I don't think we want to, or need to, do
> that in this document. We brought it up because without at least a minimal
> dereference solution, the mechanism does not meet the requirements. A
> presence subscription would do that, with no need for more.
>
> And if we do that, we could drop the resolution-protocol parameter and
> registry, because sip/sips/pres doesn't need it.
>

Brian's words here are the first to make me say "Aha! I think we have
something new" that I've read so far this evening. There may be some
merit in this approach -- please consider it carefully.

--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:14:40 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 26 2006 - 23:43:58 EDT