Re: [Geopriv] RFC 3205 & HELD

From: Richard Barnes ^lt;rbarnes@bbn.com>
Date: Sun Oct 28 2007 - 10:19:26 EDT

It's also worth noting that RFC 3205 is just a set of recommendations,
not anything binding. Since the document doesn't make a general
requirement for ALL http-based protocols to have a different URI scheme
and port number, was there something in particular about HELD that led
you to those requirements?

We should probably have this same debate about LoST, although it may be
mostly subsumed by previous discussions. (Cross-posted to ECRIT)

--RB

Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> I have read RFC 3205 and my impression is that for HELD we have to
> * define a new URI scheme, and
> * use a different port number.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> PS: What is the value of WSDL in the HELD specification?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:19:26 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 28 2007 - 10:20:35 EDT