(please provide text!), but we can't cover all the identifiers out
there. Maybe a compromise approach would be to only include identifiers
where such text can be written?
--Richard
Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
>> Consider case (2) first. The recommendation that we would want to make
>> is for the LS to verify that the identifier actually corresponds to the
>> target. However, the identifiers in question will necessarily not be
>> IP-layer identifiers (or else there would be no problem). That means
>> that we can't define an Internet-standard mechanism for this
>> verification -- mechanisms will have to be network-specific.
>> So we're left making a vague statement that has to be re-interpreted for each
>> network (or type of network). Not very satisfying, but basically all that can be done.
>
> I don't think that it's necessary for us to restrict ourselves to vague statements in
> all cases. For some types of identifiers (such as MAC addresses, NAIs, telephone #s),
> we can probably give quite specific recommendations about verification procedures.
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
