Hannes just quoted text from the main HELD spec that happens to
confuse two different identities, making them appear as if they are
the same, when they are not.
As noted in the "HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)"
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery] Section 6.6:
says:
The LIS MUST NOT include any means of identifying the Device in
the PIDF-LO unless it is able to verify that the identifier is
correct and inclusion of identity is expressly permitted by a Rule
Maker. Therefore, PIDF parameters that contain identity are
either omitted or contain unlinked pseudonyms [RFC3693]. A
unique, unlinked presentity URI SHOULD be generated by the LIS for
the mandatory presence "entity" attribute of the PIDF document.
Optional parameters such as the "contact" element and the
"deviceID" element [RFC4479] are not used.
RFC 4479 discusses device ID as probably the hardware device's MAC address.
The entity= attribute within the <presence> element is the presentity's URI.
The above paragraph from [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]
discusses the two as if these are the same identity, and they are not
(they are not even at the same OSI layer, one is at layer 2, the
other is at layer 7).
This paragraph needs to be fixed.
I apologize for not noticing this earlier.
BTW - I agree the device ID (i.e., the MAC address of the device the
user is logged into) should not be included). But the entity=
attribute as the AOR of the presentity is probably going to be there
more of the time -- and should not be "SHOULD NOT linkable".
James
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
