Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review : draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol-03

"Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com> Wed, 02 November 2011 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238CB11E80A5; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.366
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.767, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UtcOdAXklnMd; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdcsmgw02.commscope.com (fw.commscope.com [198.135.207.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6D311E8091; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 0a0404e9-b7cd4ae000004b3f-32-4eb1c1ff354b
Received: from ACDCE7HC1.commscope.com ( [10.86.20.102]) by cdcsmgw02.commscope.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id F2.F6.19263.FF1C1BE4; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 17:19:44 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from CDCE10HC2.commscope.com (10.86.28.22) by ACDCE7HC1.commscope.com (10.86.20.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 17:19:43 -0500
Received: from SISPE7HC1.commscope.com (10.97.4.12) by CDCE10HC2.commscope.com (10.86.28.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 17:19:43 -0500
Received: from SISPE7MB1.commscope.com ([fe80::9d82:a492:85e3:a293]) by SISPE7HC1.commscope.com ([fe80::8a9:4724:f6bb:3cdf%10]) with mapi; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:18:15 +0800
From: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 06:18:10 +0800
Thread-Topic: Gen-art last call review : draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol-03
Thread-Index: AcyZpIGW15isWXN4TOCn2NtlCPrMxwAA65fQ
Message-ID: <27AFD040F6F8AA4193E0614E2E3AF9C910D7C1F1B2@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
References: <4EA420A6.4090702@dial.pipex.com> <27AFD040F6F8AA4193E0614E2E3AF9C910D7C1EF94@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <F6514D0E-19E1-42AA-9695-0BD09C6967FA@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <F6514D0E-19E1-42AA-9695-0BD09C6967FA@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: GEOPRIV <geopriv@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol.all@tools.ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review : draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:19:48 -0000

On 2011-11-03 at 08:15:01, Robert Sparks wrote:
> (Including the geopriv list on this reply).
> 
> Martin - there's one change you made that I think you need to adjust.
> In response to Elwyn's suggestion about Appendix A, Req 9 below, 
> you've added some 2119 text to that appendix which isn't right. Is 
> there a place you can say what you want to say in the body of the document?

Yeah, and that was stupid of me.

The security considerations already contains a statement to this effect:

   Location URIs MUST only be disclosed to authorized Location
   Recipients.  

As for the 2119 language, a reference to the above statement should do:

OLD:
   In order to comply with these rules, a Location Recipient	
   MUST NOT redistribute a location URI without express	
   permission. Depending on the access control model, the	
   location URI might be secret (see Section 3.3 of	
   [RFC5808]).
NEW:
   For location URIs that are use possession as a component of
   authorization, the protecting the secrecy of the URI is
   necessary in order to comply with this requirement (see
   Section 6).

--Martin