I've read through Hannes' comments on this document, and can say that I agree in general with his comments. Your characterization of his comments was unfair - there are relatively few comments with substantive changes.
To expand on these, there are a few things that need better explanation of mechanism:
1. authorization model
JamesW already sent a mail on the subject of providing the location URI to multiple hosts. This does not work where the authorization model is in use.
More seriously, it is my view that the document cannot place establishment and maintenance of policy out of scope as it does. If the authorization model is used, then any deployment of this protocol will only result in the location URIs being unusable (for anything but emergency services).
2. URI types
We discussed this briefly in the meeting. In short, use of http[s]: URIs will be acceptable, providing that sufficient constraints are placed on the use of these.
There are other less significant problems; but these need to be resolved.
--Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
