RE: [Geopriv] Location header name collides with HTTP

From: Brian Rosen ^lt;br@brianrosen.net>
Date: Wed Aug 02 2006 - 11:28:38 EDT

James is on vacation, so I want to wait until he returns but I agree with
you. Would "Geolocation" be acceptable? It does sometimes make you think we
only mean lat/lon, instead of also allowing street address, but it's
technically accurate.

Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:19 AM
> To: SIP working group; GEOPRIV working group
> Subject: [Geopriv] Location header name collides with HTTP
>
> Just to throw another curveball:
>
> I don't know why nobody has noticed this before, but the definition of
> Location in draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-03 directly conflicts
> with the HTTP usage of the same header name (section 14.30 of RFC 2616).
>
> While the two name spaces are nominally different, I think it is a
> fundamentally bad idea to collide with the HTTP name space and re-use
> the same header name for dramatically different content. (Among other
> reasons, we might want to use the same (geo/civic) location mechanism in
> RTSP or even HTTP later, and it would be really confusing to have
> different names in each protocol.)
>
> Since there's no shortage of English words, this should be changed.
>
> By the way, we had this discussion early on in SIP, yielding the Contact
> header (instead of, as it happens, Location, although the concepts were
> much closer).
>
> For some reason, HTTP seems to have survived without disallowing the
> "fax" URI scheme...
>
> Henning
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:28:38 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 02 2006 - 11:55:24 EDT