Thursday, April 28, 2011

Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-uri-00 WGLC

On 4/28/11 8:11 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> This is the right idea, but I don't think that a request parameter is going to help. It would be unlikely that a server is able to support a new policy URI scheme because a client asks for that scheme. Instead, we can simply suggest that the server provide a policy URI for every scheme that it supports. The client can then pick the one that suits it best.

After thinking about this a bit, there is a possibility that the server
is having to allocate specific resources on a per-protocol basis, in
which case you'd want the ability for the client to hint at a preferred
protocol (so as to avoid unnecessary allocation of resources for
unwanted protocols).

But I don't really have a strong opinion on the issue -- it's just
another point worth considering.

/a
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv