Re: [Geopriv] rethinking data:

From: James M. Polk ^lt;jmpolk@cisco.com>
Date: Fri Aug 25 2006 - 18:01:50 EDT

At 04:08 PM 8/25/2006 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
>Having reviewed the archives

Andy

Which archives did you review?

There were several voices opposed to it, but maybe not on the Geopriv
list. After all, this is a SIP doc...

>on the recent location conveyance discussion, I see that I was the only
>one to raise an objection to the use of a data: URL in the Location header.
>
>My objection was based on the fact that it would add unnecessary
>complexity. Given some more time to think this through, I believe it adds
>no more complexity than the alternative... even much less complexity than
>the alternatives especially if there is no desire to specify its use with
>XML D-Sig. Of course, the use of this mechanism MUST be restricted
>specifically to emergency scenarios, and only when location is not present
>in the body.
>
>-andy
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:01:50 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 25 2006 - 18:19:08 EDT