Subject: RE: [Geopriv] RE: [Sip] Allowing sip: in location header not good

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:21:32 -0500

RFC 4119: A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format

The title indicates an object format.  RFC 4119 addresses the object format requirements of RFC 3693 - I terms of claims, it makes none related to a using protocol.

Sections 3 and 4 are the closest it gets to a using protocol.  In these sections it only covers requirements for this particular object in relation to a using protocol.

I don't know if those RFCs are enough to classify as a definitive "using protocol", but evidently it is for some people. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, 21 July 2006 11:22 PM
> To: Thomson, Martin; Andrew Newton
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; James M. Polk
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] RE: [Sip] Allowing sip: in location header not good
> 
> I always understood that RFC 4119 was the presence using protocol
> definition for RFC 4079 architecture.
> 
> If that is not the case then we have a hole in the RFCs from GEOPRIV,
> because many organisations are already using RFC 4119 in presence based
> architectures.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Keith
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomson, Martin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: 21 July 2006 02:51
> > To: Andrew Newton
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; James M. Polk
> > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] RE: [Sip] Allowing sip: in location
> > header not good
> >
> > Yes, I had forgotten.
> >
> > That document is informational, saying that location is
> > presence.  What I haven't gotten yet, is whether or not this
> > document consequently implies that RFCs 3265/3859/etc...
> > define a using protocol that meets RFC 3693 requirements.
> >
> > M
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Friday, 21 July 2006 10:54 AM
> > > To: Thomson, Martin
> > > Cc: James M. Polk; Brian Rosen; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] RE: [Sip] Allowing sip: in location
> > header not
> > > good
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:55 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> > > > That is to say - the location conveyance document doesn't
> > cover its
> > > > use, and nothing else does...yet.  When someone does a using-
> > > > protocol specification for SUB/NOT, then we have a place
> > to describe
> > > > how to use sip[s]: in the Location header.
> > >
> > > I guess we've all forgotten about RFC 4079.  Here's the link:
> > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4079.txt
> > >
> > > -andy
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------------------------------
> > This message is for the designated recipient only and may
> > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
> > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> > immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
> > this email is prohibited.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------------------------------
> > [mf2]
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
> Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip