>> Location configuration protocols [can|may|might] make use of an
>> authorization model
>> known as "LCP policy,"
that would be better?
Alissa
On Oct 13, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Marc Linsner wrote:
> Alissa,
>
>
> On 10/10/09 3:40 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <acooper@cdt.org> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> == Section 5 (based on text suggested below) ==
>>> The authorization model for a location configuration protocol
>>> assumes
>>> that the LR is also the Target, and that providing that LR with
>>> information
>>> about its own location is allowed. We call this property "LCP
>>> policy".
>>
>> Replace with:
>>
>> Location configuration protocols make use of an authorization model
>> known as "LCP policy," which permits only Targets to be the
>> recipients
>> of their own locations.
>>
>
> GeoPriv should not set-in-stone "LCP Policy". That's up to the
> RuleMaker.
> We can assume the RuleMaker's policy for a target knowing it's own
> location
> is different from a 3rd party policy, and we can posture the request
> as
> such, but as Laura Leiss has stated for a long time, the Rulemaker
> will
> ultimately decide whether a target will see it's own location or not.
>
> -Marc-
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
