Subject: RE: Teasing apart positions (was Re: [Sip] RE: [Geopriv] Consensusonchanges to location-conveyance)

From: "Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:57:39 +0200

True, but I haven't yet seen any proposals to do that. That would
presumably require two URIs in the Location header or some other means
of identifying the two protocols with the same URI.

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 27 July 2006 16:34
> To: Drage, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: IETF SIP List; GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: Teasing apart positions (was Re: [Sip] RE: 
> [Geopriv] Consensusonchanges to location-conveyance)
> 
> > ii)	if we have more than one option, we either need some means of
> > determining that the dereferencer supports the one the 
> client chooses 
> > to use, or require support of all options. As we seem to be lacking 
> > any mechanism for the former, then it would imply that all options 
> > have to be supported at the dereferencer, and therefore 
> that the list 
> > needs to be a small list.
> 
> This isn't quite true. It is quite possible to include 
> multiple options, as long as one of them is universally 
> supported. For example, you can support a "universal & slow" 
> and a "sometimes & fast" solution, and everybody wins.
> 
> This approach is not new: MIME email does exactly that, where 
> messages with HTML or rich text often also contain an 
> alternate plain text rendering.
> 
> Henning
> 

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv