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

"James M. Polk" <> Tue, 27 July 2010 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 719723A6A6E for <>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.553
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LPRTPmfVlaCO for <>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EFF23A6BA9 for <>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,266,1278288000"; d="scan'208";a="139591842"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 Jul 2010 08:25:41 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6R8Pd72005393; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:25:40 GMT
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 03:25:40 -0500
To: Adam Roach <>, "James M. Polk" <>
From: "James M. Polk" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Alexander Mayrhofer <>, "Richard L. Barnes" <>, "" <>, "Thomson, Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] geo URI and conveyance: conclusion?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:25:20 -0000


So what are you saying?

You seems to be implying something, but I can't tell if it's what I 
said, what Martin said or something in between?

Can you give one clarifying statement about what you understand this 
issue to be solved as?


At 04:04 PM 7/26/2010, Adam Roach wrote:

>  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.
>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.
>>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
>>>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).
>>>>>sipcore mailing list
>>>>sipcore mailing list
>>sipcore mailing list