- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:50:54 -0500
- To: "Eric Burger" <eburger@snowshore.com>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>
At 15:56 04/02/27 -0500, Eric Burger wrote: >If we were to assume that a URL -at a host- somehow leaked out as a URI >-in a domain-, would John's proposal, to prepend the user name with 'sip' >and postfix it with 'master' alleviate the potential problem? Something in that direction, yes, very much. I don't care too much about the specifics. Maybe having prefixes and suffixes is a bit too complicated, so rather than sipanncmaster, better anncsipmaster or so, or something a bit simpler. Regards, Martin. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org] > > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 11:02 AM > > To: Eric Burger > > Cc: uri@w3.org > > Subject: RE: Review of IETF netann Draft > > > > > > At 17:24 04/02/23 -0500, Eric Burger wrote: > > > > > > From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org] > > > > > > At 12:50 04/02/19 -0500, Eric Burger wrote: > > > > > > > > >The IETF Internet Draft Basic Network Media Services with SIP, > > > > > > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-burger-sipping-neta >nn-08.txt, > > > >amongst other things establishes a URI convention for > > > addressing named > > > >resources at an automaton (in this case, a media server). > > > > > One solution to this problem may be to change > > > sip:annc@example.net.... > > > to > > > sip:special-annc@example.net > > > (choose whatever appropriate for the 'special' prefix). > > > >In theory, any special prefix suffers the same problem. "annc" takes away > >from the namespace the same as "special-annc". > > > >In practice, it is in fact the way SIP is used that makes the namespace > >issue a non-problem. The "reserved" users are typically at a device or > >proxy. They are not exposed externally, as discussed in Section 6 of the > >draft. > >I have way not enough SIP knowledge to try to give you examples >how this might change in the future. But I'm also sure that you >cannot predict the future. Better be careful now than sorry >later. > > >Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 27 February 2004 16:52:28 UTC