(As WG chair)

Please do not misquote me. I have not asked for alternative proposals to
the matters you apparently are discussing.

On other threads, we are seeking WG consensus calls on specific
proposals; it is only on those specific proposals that I have asked for
alternative views. 

If you have a view on those specific proposals then please contribute to
those threads.

Regards

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank W. Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 3:49 PM
> To: Henning Schulzrinne
> Cc: IETF SIP List; Robert Sparks
> Subject: Re: [Sip] SIPit 20 survey summary
> 
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:58 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> > For the record, I will note that I have made proposals for 
> simple non- 
> > multipart location conveyance (using the data: URL), but various 
> > process-related arguments were made as to why we weren't allowed to 
> > look at that. (I'd prefer even simpler solutions, such as 
> the one that 
> > XMPP uses, but that's beyond the political correctness limit in
> > GEOPRIV.)
> > 
> 
> Would it be possible to see these extensions?  Keith asked 
> for alternative proposals, it seems like looking at that 
> might be a good idea now.
> 
> 
> > I tend to agree that exhortations to developers generally achieve 
> > little. On the other hand, I'm not sure that belly-aching about 
> > multipart is all that helpful. After all, most email 
> clients support 
> > it and there are libraries in various languages to help with 
> > implementation. Generating multipart bodies is pretty trivial (as 
> > opposed to parsing them), and that's all embedded devices will 
> > generally have to do for location conveyance.
> > 
> 
> As I said, I and others will implement whatever we're directed to.
> Personally, I've got Expat in there now for PIDF and even 
> parsing MP MIME isn't really that hard.
> 
> My question is more focused on the essence of the Jeron's 
> off-the-cuff proposal.  Does the location information belong 
> in the body or in the main SIP headers?  I believe its the 
> latter primarily for the argument that was put forth, i.e. 
> the information is so important it deserves first-class 
> treatment in the message headers.  The fact that its 
> simplified comes primarily from the fact that you need to be 
> more compact in your representation if your in the headers.
> 
> Dropping the return address list to [email protected] only to 
> minimize messages in my inbox...
> 
> 
> FM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip 
> Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
> 


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

Reply via email to