Re: Standard HTTP Header for Geolocation

Any feedback other than James' yet?

I really think this matter deserves an answer, negative it is, from the WG.

Thanks,

Em 21/02/2011 01:38, "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>escreveu:

At 11:34 AM 2/20/2011, Fernando Ribeiro wrote:

> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Has this working already evaluated submitting a RFC for a standard HTTP
> header for ge...
> There was a draft some years ago (<
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daviel-http-geo-header-05>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daviel-http-geo-header-05), when handful
> things like the geo: scheme (<http://geouri.org/>http://geouri.org/)
> hadn't been developed yet.
>

Hopefully this new header will *not* be called "Geolocation", as that is the
Header field name within SIP, and the two have often decided it is best not
to have different meanings for the same header field name - especially when
they will each have different properties.

....unless someone decides to have them have the same properties.

If interested, the SIP ID is here:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-05.txt(which
is about to move to -06.txt sometime this week).

This draft is about to enter WGLC for the last time, and should go to the
IESG for their review before becoming a standards track RFC. Best case, this
whole process will complete in the May/June timeframe.

James




> With location-based applications being more common by the hour, I think
this header is urgent t...