Thanks for the review
comments in-line
At 01:26 AM 7/20/2009, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>Hi James,
>
>Thanks for the update. I have compiled my comments into the MS word
>with track changes and turned it into a PDF. <<...>>
thanks for this format
>There are a bunch of editorial suggestions; maybe they are useful.
I'm frustrated by some of the comments and suggestions because - in
some cases - they hack apart text that's been (unmodified) in the
document since the individual -00 was submitted way more than 2 years
ago, and no comments were made until now. Makes me think I
continually have to hit a moving target...
another frustration is with the "entity= attribute" vs. "device ID
element" discussion - which several on this list don't seem to want
to separate - and they are separate topics. The entity= attribute is
equivalent to an AOR in SIP (i.e., it is the presentity's URI), but
the <deviceID> element is equivalent to a MAC address. Both are
identifiers, but one can change and the other is fixed for the life
of that device.
When Hannes logs onto two devices, the two devices each have unique
identifiers (i.e., unique MAC addresses), but Hannes' presentity URI
is the same for both devices, unless the URI has a host part embedded
within the URI (analogous to a SIP AOR vs. a Contact Address). The
user part and the domain part of the URIs are still the same. The
two identifiers should never be considered the same - and all the
discussion about interchanging the meanings of entity= and device
should never happen.
but it still does...
That said - some comments, however, seem to be fine and I'll modify
the text accordingly.
>There is only one major comment: It is good that you describe the
>security model you focus on. It seems that you settled with the
>authorization model in comparison to the possession model. That's
>fine with me given the lack of confidentiality protection in DHCP.
ok, glad you think this is ok moving forward...
>Now, in order to get it to work in an interoperable fashion you
>would have to make Geolocation Policy and XCAP a normative reference
>(mandatory to implement).
I have Geolocation Policy as informative now (and have had it in
there for a while), and I can make this normative, but I don't yet
see how making XCAP explicitly normative is necessary. If you
believe it is to get Geolocation Policy to work, then making
Geolocation Policy normative ought to be enough, don't you think? If
not, exactly which piece of text in this ID do I place the XCAP
reference directly next to?
>I cannot see it would work otherwise.
>
>Ciao
>Hannes
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
