Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-04

Hi Marc, 

don't know whether this is the model that James has in mind. 

Please also note the paragraph at the end of Section 4.3: 

   It should also be noted that while the lybr requirements document
   specifies a requirement that a client SHOULD be able to cancel
   location references, the protocol specified in this document does not
   provide that functionality.  The mechanism to provide this support in
   the protocol requires explicit management of Target state on the LIS.
   It is anticipated that extensions to HELD may support that
   requirement.

This paragraph refers to functionality similar to
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-context-03.txt.
That document might not be too applicable to your solution as a concrete
mechanism but the idea is similar. 

Btw, I noticed a mismatch with the    
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-07
Document: 
"
C3. Location URI cancellation:  The location configuration protocol
      MUST support the ability to request a cancellation of a specific
      location URI.
"

You could also say that the following requirements stated in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-07 by this
document in it's current form: 

   C6. Reuse indicator:  There SHOULD be a way to allow a client to
      control whether a location URI can be resolved once only, or
      multiple times.

   C7. Selective disclosure:  The location configuration protocol MUST
      provide a mechanism to control what information is being disclosed
      about the Target.

Ciao
Hannes

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com] 
>Sent: 26 March, 2009 09:57
>To: Hannes Tschofenig; 'GEOPRIV'
>Subject: Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-04
>
>Hannes,
>
>Would the words from section 4.3 of the HELD draft satisfy this?
>
>-Marc-
>
>
>On 3/26/09 9:55 AM, "Hannes Tschofenig" 
><Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Regarding the discussion we had at the meeting today I believe I am 
>> only asking for a description on the expected semantic of 
>the LbyR for 
>> usage with this document to make sure that we have a common 
>> understanding of the security / privacy properties.
>> 
>> I don't think that my request goes too far.
>> 
>> Thanks. 
>> 
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>