IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion?

"Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> Mon, 26 July 2010 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <rbarnes@bbn.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 A08BE3A6C25 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 cTK0GA7DIVEF for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936313A6C39 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.89.252.234] (port=51998 helo=dhcp-22e1.meeting.ietf.org) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1OdPtr-0002Tz-5C; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:47:31 -0400
Message-Id: <E53B9D4B-F8B6-4643-91A2-DDC471D957F8@bbn.com>
From: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
To: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201007261510.o6QFAaa3010310@rtp-core-2.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:47:26 +0200
References: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03EB77364D@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <201007261510.o6QFAaa3010310@rtp-core-2.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>, "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 15:47:16 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email