We're not agreeing yet...
Yes, I would like to solve the problem that was previously known as OBO. That is, third party requests that use the mechaisms provided by held-identity.
I'll note that OBO is a term that isn't necessary because we already had adequate labels in the GEOPRIV model.
That's right. I'm saying that we don't need to justify our use case in privacy terms. Not any further than we have already.
> Before we can agree to the above, we have to agree that HELD identity
> extensions is strictly for the use-case described (further) above,
> third-party/OBO (we need to pick one term), and can not be used by a
> target discovering it's own location from a Rulemaker pov.
We did agree. It's not LCP. It's someone requesting the location of someone else.
--Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
