Re: [Sip] RE: [Geopriv] Does Location-Conveyance have an HTTP dereferencemechanism defined

From: Henning Schulzrinne ^lt;hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed Aug 02 2006 - 14:57:21 EDT

> What difference do you see between the proxy behavior when something
> is rejected as "flawed" because it contains a newly defined protocol and proxy behavior
> when the URL scheme list is open and the proxy encounters one it does not understand?

There are three cases, in general:

- "flawed" -> reject request with 4xx error

- "don't understand any" -> ignore (and maybe special-case route it to
some smart entity that might) or generate error

- "don't understand one of the schemes" -> ignore and pick one you
understand

I'm assuming a model where a request may contain multiple location
references, just like LoST responses can point to multiple PSAP URI schemes.

That, by the way, is the level of detail that the draft might want to
have and seems to be leaving somewhat under-defined.

>
> Ted

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:57:21 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 02 2006 - 15:19:39 EDT