Re: [Mobopts] [IRSG] MobOpts:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt

> > Technically, the I-D is fine as far as I can tell - which
> > doesn't mean
> > much, though, as I'm not at all an expert on that
> > topic.
> >I must admit
> > that I didn't closely follow the recent discussion in
> > the IRSG about
> > what kind of specification an RG can write, but I remember
> > a note
> > from Sally saying that an RG I-D shouldn't specify a
> > standard protocol
> > behavior - could someone please take a quick look to check
> > whether
> > the kind of specification that this document constitutes is
> > appropriate
> > for an RG?
>
> This ID is not a specification for a standard, since it is an IRTF
document. It does specify, in considerable detail, the location privacy
behavior for Mobile IPv6. The use of "MAY", "SHOULD", and "MUST" are used
for protocol behavior, just as we have done for other RG RFCs 4651, 5184,
and that does not constitute "standard protocol specification", AFAIK.

ok, sounds ok for me then - just wanted to be sure

cheers
Michael

_______________________________________________
Mobopts mailing list
Mobopts@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts