> You may get other comments around end-user knowledge of location
> dissemination/rules, etc.
There is already text in the document regarding the need for the establishment of prior authorization by Rule Makers.
Now, if your meta-policy dictates that an end-user is a Rule Maker, you get what you want. But end-user knowledge is not mandated, even if it is arguably a desirable goal in many cases.
If the user is only one of many Rule Makers, then it might be the wish of a non-end-user Rule Maker that the end-user is not aware of the rules it creates. Yes, that's not pretty, but I'd argue that a) GEOPRIV permits this, and b) that it's an ugly fact of life and not our problem. If you have a problem with that, I'd suggest a career in public policy.
> Just to be clear, the draft is asking for the functional equivalent of
> pres:identifier-du_jour@lis.example.com, correct? Knowing this allows
> me to compare the security/privacy attributes.
Not functionally equivalent in all aspects, but I think that they are equivalent from the perspective of applying GEOPRIV principles (i.e. RFC 3693 and geopriv-arch). The security story might be different. For instance, SIP generally has intermediaries, which adds complexity that doesn't apply here.
--Martin
>
> -Marc-
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
