>I could imagine that adding the ability to upload Common
>Policy/Geolocation Policy as an add-on to
>draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-context-04.txt is a lot easier than
>using XCAP, particularly since I believe that 95% of the cases will only
>make usage of a fraction of Common Policy (and nothing from the
>geolocation policy document).
I'm trying to figure out what is being said here in Hannes' paragraph above.
Is HELD really not needing Common Policy/Geolocation Policy because
it has another ID specifying some other mechanism?
If so, why would this WG allow this?
Common Policy is supposed to be "common" to everything, right?
Geolocation Policy is supposed to be used by everything Geopriv
specific, right?
It appears the net result of this - if true - is that DHCP has to
jump through hoops that HELD doesn't, even though HELD can.
James
>Ciao
>Hannes
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
