The paragraph in question comes directly from RFC 4776. I figured that if it was good enough there, then it is good enough here.
However, I tend to agree with James. It doesn't really say what needs to be said.
So…what do we need to say with respect to policy?
From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: Friday, 18 September 2009 1:59 AM
To: jmpolk@cisco.com
Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] [geopriv] #22: Resolution does not define Geographic Privacy policy ?
> This paragraph is also missing the point recently raised that the
> security properties of LI delivery of an LCP is based on the protocol
> itself, not a function of the server needing to do anything (i.e.,
> there is no authorization step or encryption necessary).
Should this be the central point made with respect to privacy policy?
Or is there something else to say with respect to resolution/uncertainty
as well?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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] |
