Thank you for being sane.
That is all,
--Richard
On Nov 13, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> There was general agreement that LCP cases could be included -
> providing that these were described in sufficient detail. The
> concern was with the amount detail for LCP in the current draft.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>> Sent: Friday, 13 November 2009 4:15 PM
>> To: Winterbottom, James; Richard Barnes; geopriv@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 76
>>
>> This is a working group document.
>>
>> It does not have authors.
>>
>> It has editors who work to WG concensus. What was the WG consensus?
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
>>> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Winterbottom, James
>>> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 2:58 AM
>>> To: Richard Barnes; geopriv@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 76
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. HELD Identity Extensions
>>> draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions
>>> Martin Thomson presented an update on this document. The
>>> primary open issues are around how authentication and
>>> authorization are applied.
>>> Cullen Jennings expressed concern that current text on
>>> authenticating ownership of identifiers is not implementable.
>>> The authors agreed to restrict usage to limited cases with
>>> pre-configured authorization relationships, except possibly
>>> for some cases the document can provide clear, implementable
>> guidance.
>>>
>>> [AJW] Absolutely NOT TRUE! I voiced a very strong protest to
>>> this in the jabber room. I agree to this ONLY for the
>>> identifiers that cannot have an explicitly verifiable link
>>> back to the Target IP address. I have provided one very good
>>> example of where this is the case. I will look at the others
>>> and see if there are similar scenarios. But please, the
>>> comment above about the author's agreeing is false and what
>>> is stated was not the outcome.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> James
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
