> DISCUSS: This discuss can probably be cleared up quickly. I'm
> surprised to see a DHCPv4/6 option standardized out of GEOPRIV. Has
> the DHC WG reviewed this?
The -05 draft was discussed extensively with DHC; -06 and -07 were the product of that discussion. It's changed a little since then, and we haven't gone back (an oversight on my part).
> What if I have multiple access interfaces connected to multiple
> operators, all of which operate LIS servers that satisfy the criteria
> for use? According to the outlined procedure, I'd only ever use one
> of
> them. Does it truly not matter which LIS I use? How does this
> procedure intersect with what the MIF WG is doing?
If the goal is to get location information, then it is considered that any information is enough. The source does matter, but not enough to have us describe more complicated procedures. The text purposefully avoids "MUST" to allow implementations to use other logic if that suits. If you believe that the "SHOULD" needs further clarification, I can add:
This approach ensures that the device obtains location information as fast as possible. An implementation MAY use other algorithms if it has other goals or if it has better information about the different access networks it uses.
(...reads MIF charter and PS...) This is certainly pertinent to the work in MIF. The problems that they discuss are the reason that this text is in here.
> Nit: s/probablity/probability/
Fixed.
Thanks,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
