Subject: [Geopriv] Teasing apart: constraints on dereference URI

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:25:55 -0400

There have been many conversations regarding constraining the URI in the 
Location header.  There have been many positions taken on this subject, 
and this email is intended to understand the various opinions.

Is there anybody who believes that the type of URI in the Location 
header should not be constrained in any way?  In other words, any URI 
scheme may be valid and there should be no attempt to specify the URI 
scheme or associated protocol for dereferencing location.  And if so, do 
you believe location will only be dereferenced via a user clicking on a 
link or by automatic software action?  If the latter, how do you see 
software adapting to multiple URI schemes and their associated protocols?

Is there anybody who believes that the dereference URI should be 
restricted to a specific set of schemes, enforced via ABNF, XML Schema, 
or other grammar specification and re-enforced with MUST/SHOULD 
language?  The intent here being that the set would be definitive or at 
the very least require major effort to update.

Finally, how many people desire a middle ground?  Perhaps where the 
ABNF, XML Schema or other grammar specification allows for any URI 
scheme but there is an IANA registry listing the allowed dereference URI 
schemes and associated protocols?

-andy

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

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:35:41 +0200

Hi Andy,

I would like to see the architectural questions being solved first. I 
don't think that it should go into the location conveyance document if 
there is interest to get it done soon.

Finally, I would like to see some strawman proposals first. I don't want 
to sign a blank check.

Ciao
Hannes

Andrew Newton wrote:
> 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
> 
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:27:50 -0500

At 10:25 AM 7/27/2006 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
>Is there anybody who believes that the type of URI in the Location header 
>should not be constrained in any way?  In other words, any URI scheme may 
>be valid and there should be no attempt to specify the URI scheme or 
>associated protocol for dereferencing location.  And if so, do you believe 
>location will only be dereferenced via a user clicking on a link or by 
>automatic software action?  If the latter, how do you see software 
>adapting to multiple URI schemes and their associated protocols?
>
>restricted to a specific set of schemes, enforced via ABNF, XML Schema, or 
>other grammar specification and re-enforced with MUST/SHOULD 

Andy - I vote for the scheme be defined within the using protocol's 
(general) area.

For example, if a SIP document defines SIP and a Geopriv using protocol, 
then it should define one or more schemas near SIP (SIP, SIMPLE, 
MMUSIC).  This does result in sip/sips/pres/cid being in the SIP using 
protocol doc.

If there were an HTTP document promoting HTTP being a Geopriv using 
protocol, that document should be the one defining HTTP area schemas, 
meaning http/https.

and so on for other protocols

>Finally, how many people desire a middle ground?  Perhaps where the ABNF, 
>XML Schema or other grammar specification allows for any URI scheme but 
>there is an IANA registry listing the allowed dereference URI schemes and 
>associated protocols?

I think any IANA Registry here will point back to a Standards Track RFC 
that defined the usage and semantics, which your question is not 
allowing.  Therefore, for what you have immediately above, I disagree.

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:42:04 -0400

James M. Polk wrote:
>> scheme but there is an IANA registry listing the allowed dereference 
>> URI schemes and associated protocols?
> 

I guess that may have been too much hand waving on my part.  So let me 
ask you this question:  if the grammar were to only specify "URI" and no 
particular kind of URI, yet the kinds of URIs allowed must have to pass 
some sort of review before their use in the Location header is 
considered acceptable, would you find favor in this approach?

And if so, how would you implement it?

-andy

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:42:59 -0500

At 01:27 PM 7/27/2006 -0500, James M. Polk wrote:
>>associated protocol for dereferencing location.  And if so, do you 
>>believe location will only be dereferenced via a user clicking on a link 
>>or by automatic software action?  If the latter, how do you see software 
>For example, if a SIP document defines SIP and

I meant "as" here instead of "and"

>  a Geopriv using protocol, then it should define one or more schemas near 
> SIP (SIP, SIMPLE, MMUSIC).  This does result in sip/sips/pres/cid being 
> in the SIP using protocol doc.
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:52:15 -0500

At 02:42 PM 7/27/2006 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
>I guess that may have been too much hand waving on my part.  So let me ask 
>you this question:  if the grammar were to only specify "URI" and no 
>some sort of review before their use in the Location header is considered 
>acceptable, would you find favor in this approach?

This is generally what the authors here are proposing, with Geopriv being 
the reviewers.  In SIP Location Conveyance, since it is a SIP doc (and SIP 
is the transport protocol of the Location header where the URIs will go), 
this doc will define SIP-based schemas (sip/sips/pres/cid).  Extensions to 
this RFC (if it ever gets there) can ADD schemas, once those specifications 
pass Geopriv consensus.

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:01:13 -0500

At 02:57 PM 7/27/2006 -0400, Brian Rosen wrote:
>It just seems so unlikely to me that geopriv would sanction any URI
>dereference mechanism that didn't have an RFC it could inject its review
>into.  It's got to be limited to things that are RFCs.  We can argue about
>whether it has to be standards track, we can argue about if the limit is
>enforced with ABNF, IANA registration or normative wording, but it's gotta
>be an RFC.

I vote for Standards Track, with Geopriv review, this takes care of all of 
the above.  If extensions to this doc are in the Geopriv WG, it really 
takes care of all of it.

>Brian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:42 PM
> > To: James M. Polk
> > Cc: IETF SIP List; GEOPRIV
> > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Teasing apart: constraints on dereference URI
> >
> > James M. Polk wrote:

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:57:12 -0400

Brian