I'm happy with that. I'm not sure that it's a useful statement to make, but given the history, I think that this is appropriate.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of geopriv issue tracker
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 2:34 PM
> To: jmpolk@cisco.com; bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] [geopriv] #22: Resolution does not define
> Geographic Privacy policy ?
>
> #22: Resolution does not define Geographic Privacy policy ?
> ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------
> -----
> Reporter: martin.thomson@… | Owner: jmpolk@…
> Type: task | Status: new
> Priority: minor | Milestone: draft-ietf-
> geopriv-3825bis
> Component: rfc3825bis | Version:
> Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: policy
> ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------
> -----
>
> Comment(by bernard_aboba@…):
>
> How about this?
>
> Change: "Resolution does not define Geographic Privacy policy"
>
> To:
>
> "No inferences relating to privacy policies can be drawn from either
> uncertainty or resolution values."
>
> --
> Ticket URL:
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/22#comment:2>
> geopriv <http://tools.ietf.org/geopriv/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
