[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
schofenig Hannes wrote:
> hi henning,
> do you remember our discussions in the washington interim meeting?
> considered the http proposals for distributing location information.
> daviels proposed a custom location information format. there we
> we have to consider privacy issues (and therefore our results of the
> working group). the geopriv working group decided to build their location
> objects based on xml (and also the policies). some size considerations go
> along with it (also with the usage of s/mime).
That's putting it rather mildly... Given the trivial structure for the
basic PIDF privacy information, I'm not convinced that we always need
the full generality of a GML object. I'd like to hear a technical,
rather than procedural, argument for disallowing that. (In HTTP, the
size argument was largely a non-issue.)
There might be more general value in a restricted format, as it could be
applicable to other limited-functionality and bandwidth/size-constrained
cases. There is clearly precedent for coding information in multiple
formats; the DHCP drafts are examples of that.
The other alternative is http://www.w3.org/TR/wbxml/, but that 'note'
comes with warning labels that indicate that this is not exactly a
> regarding your dhcp example: the dhcp scenario is a little bit
different to the radius/diameter example
> since the location information which is distributed is not only about the
> visited network but rather about the user (and also used in this sense).
It would be a trivial exercise to embed the privacy flags into a TLV
I have nothing against XML, but I'm worried about declaring it a
religion where any questioning of its universal applicability is
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.