Yup.
Think of it as a GEOPRIV "profile" that we make available to rule makers who might struggle with the complexity of GEOPRIV.
> Which raises
> the question:
> why are the results of this application of the rules not bound into a
> PIDF-LO in
> all cases? (Now that I have caught up a bit further, I see Brian asked
> the same
> question).
Good question. I can't answer that. Is this something that you believe we need to address in our revision of the DHCP LCP with RFC3825bis?
> If we
> include the
> PIDF-LO rules along with location to the target, no harm is done that I
> can see.
> Why not, then?
Sounds reasonable.
> May I ask that the WG Chairs solicit that review now, in
> current
> round of discussion?
Certainly worth taking the document on the rounds of all the other relevant groups sooner than later. Since we're in the process of trying to discover issues, now seems like a good time.
--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
