Re: [Geopriv] GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 76

No hum called, no consensus reached!

________________________________________
From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [drage@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 1:15 AM
To: Winterbottom, James; Richard Barnes; geopriv@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 76

This is a working group document.

It does not have authors.

It has editors who work to WG concensus. What was the WG consensus?

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Winterbottom, James
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 2:58 AM
> To: Richard Barnes; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 76
>
>
>
> 4. HELD Identity Extensions
>    draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions
> Martin Thomson presented an update on this document.  The
> primary open issues are around how authentication and
> authorization are applied.
> Cullen Jennings expressed concern that current text on
> authenticating ownership of identifiers is not implementable.
>  The authors agreed to restrict usage to limited cases with
> pre-configured authorization relationships, except possibly
> for some cases the document can provide clear, implementable guidance.
>
> [AJW] Absolutely NOT TRUE! I voiced a very strong protest to
> this in the jabber room. I agree to this ONLY for the
> identifiers that cannot have an explicitly verifiable link
> back to the Target IP address. I have provided one very good
> example of where this is the case. I will look at the others
> and see if there are similar scenarios. But please, the
> comment above about the author's agreeing is false and what
> is stated was not the outcome.
>
> Cheers
> James
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>