Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion?
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 26 July 2010 21:04 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F7103A69A4 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uhhAfHGzHOxn for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F693A69E1 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (n158.infopact.nl [212.29.185.158]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6QL4PMi015888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:04:26 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4C4DF852.7030504@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:04:18 +0200
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
References: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03EB77364D@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <201007261510.o6QFAaa3010310@rtp-core-2.cisco.com> <E53B9D4B-F8B6-4643-91A2-DDC471D957F8@bbn.com> <201007261602.o6QG2rhx002347@rtp-core-2.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201007261602.o6QG2rhx002347@rtp-core-2.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 212.29.185.158 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>, "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion?
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:04:41 -0000
It's not entirely different from what we were talking about, but it's not the main thrust, either. At least, not with respect to the point *I* was trying to make. The analogy I was making with "data:" URLs was an attempt to debunk the notion that the syntactic use of "anyURI" somehow implicitly allowed the use of a "geo:" URI. The comparison I made was to the myriad header fields in SIP that allow any URI -- such as Alert-Info -- but for which it would be patently ridiculous to include a "data:" URL. /a On 7/26/10 6:02 PM, James M. Polk wrote: > I'm not fighting you, but that's not how I remember the exchange > between Jon and Adam. > > james > > At 10:47 AM 7/26/2010, Richard L. Barnes wrote: >> I wouldn't say it was explicitly ruled out. We just noticed that it >> was inconsistent with the requirements RFC 3693/5808 in this context. >> What we're discussing now is how to make GEO URIs satisfy those >> requirements. >> >> >> >> On Jul 26, 2010, at 5:10 PM, James M. Polk wrote: >> >>> At 08:28 AM 7/26/2010, Thomson, Martin wrote: >>>> I missed the conclusions regarding geo URI. I got the bit where we >>>> decided that we needed to have _some_ text, but I'm not sure what >>>> we decided what the text might look like. >>>> >>>> Help me? >>> >>> I believe the agreement in the room was to explicitly avoid it >>> (i.e., "MUST NOT appear in the Geolocation header value (i.e., >>> locationValue)"). As it's too close to being a data-URL (per Adam). >>> >>> James >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sipcore mailing list >>>> sipcore@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sipcore mailing list >>> sipcore@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore > > _______________________________________________ > sipcore mailing list > sipcore@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
- [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion? Thomson, Martin
- Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion? Alexander Mayrhofer
- Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion? Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion? Thomson, Martin
- Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion? James M. Polk
- Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion? Alexander Mayrhofer
- Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion? Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion? James M. Polk
- Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion? Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion? Thomson, Martin
- Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion? Adam Roach
- Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion? James M. Polk
- Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion? Adam Roach