Regarding your COMMENT:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps/comment/
97646/
In Section 6:
The following requirements and assumptions have been identified:
Requirement L7-1: Identifier Choice
The L7 LCP MUST be able to carry different identifiers or MUST
define an identifier that is mandatory to implement.
Did you mean "identifier type" here?
Regarding
the latter aspect, such an identifier is only appropriate if it is
from the same realm as the one for which the location information
service maintains identifier to location mapping.
[hannes] Now, since the protocol itself is already in IESG review I can be
somewhat precise about the identifier being used.
In HELD
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery/
the identifier is the IP address.
In http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-thomson-geopriv-held-measurements-04.txt
additional identifiers have been proposed.
Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
