Subject: [Sip] Location header name collides with HTTP

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:18:57 -0400

Just to throw another curveball:

I don't know why nobody has noticed this before, but the definition of 
Location in draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-03 directly conflicts 
with the HTTP usage of the same header name (section 14.30 of RFC 2616).

While the two name spaces are nominally different, I think it is a 
fundamentally bad idea to collide with the HTTP name space and re-use 
the same header name for dramatically different content. (Among other 
reasons, we might want to use the same (geo/civic) location mechanism in 
RTSP or even HTTP later, and it would be really confusing to have 
different names in each protocol.)

Since there's no shortage of English words, this should be changed.

By the way, we had this discussion early on in SIP, yielding the Contact 
header (instead of, as it happens, Location, although the concepts were 
much closer).

For some reason, HTTP seems to have survived without disallowing the 
"fax" URI scheme...

Henning

_______________________________________________
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: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:28:38 -0400

James is on vacation, so I want to wait until he returns but I agree with
you. Would "Geolocation" be acceptable?  It does sometimes make you think we
only mean lat/lon, instead of also allowing street address, but it's
technically accurate.

Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:19 AM
> To: SIP working group; GEOPRIV working group
> Subject: [Geopriv] Location header name collides with HTTP
> 
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Jeroen van Bemmel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 17:32:58 +0200

Suggestion: "Location-Object"

Jeroen

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:38:36 -0400

Geolocation works for me, at least until we have to describe lunar 
coordinates.

A number of other headers have been proposed, such as

http://www.crs4.it:8000/gpsweb/26
http://geotags.com/geo/draft-daviel-kaegi-http-geo-header-05.html

These names are also best avoided.