RE: [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-03.txt

Hi Hannes,

Those ARE complete examples.  The XML prolog is not shown, but it is not required either.

Based on Lisa's comments, it would seem that a held: URI would be of some use.  I don't see the need to define a well known port.  You can see a codification of my opinion in the held-beep draft.

Cheers,
Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]
> Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2007 10:21 PM
> To: GEOPRIV
> Cc: Mary Barnes
> Subject: [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-
> 03.txt
> 
> I read through
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-03.txt
> 
> The document looks good!
> 
> A few minor issues below:
> 
> * I would use complete XML examples rather than snippets. It is fine to
> omit the HTTP part.
> 
> * What is the resolution regarding the RFC 3205 and the need to
>   -- define a new URI scheme, and
>  -- use a different port number
> for HELD?
> 
> I believe we have to use a held: URI scheme at least for the
> dereferencing protocol. See
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-deref-
> protocol-00.txt
> 
> The definition of it would, however, go into the main HELD document
> since the LbyRs are created by HELD.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]