duplicating Common Policy. The difference is that held-context does
some things that are not possible today with common-policy or
geopriv-policy framework.
Hannes/James: Thinking back to the discussions at the Dallas interim
some time ago, I thought that there was a motion to move the
held-context toward being more of an extension to common-policy, rather
than an alternative policy transport. Am I recalling correctly?
--Richard
James M. Polk wrote:
> At 02:27 AM 9/21/2009, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
>> 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
