>>
>> I think your re-write loses the point about the case of a Device
>> requesting its own location, but the LIS still needing some check
>> other than return routability. I suggest the following tweak to the
>> second paragraph:
>>
>> HELD with identity extensions allows a requester to explicitly
>> provide identification details in the body of a location
>> request. This means that location requests can be made in cases
>> where additional Device identity checks are necessary, and in cases
>> where the requester is not the Device itself.
>
> Thanks, I assume that you are OK with keeping my last sentence, or
> did you intend to have that disappear as well?
>
I did not intend for it to disappear.
>>> Just for clarity, I think the last sentence should say, "Return
>> routability may also not apply. . ."
>
> "might" rather than "may" to avoid confusion with normative text, or
> is this an intentional shading of meaning?
>
"Might" is better, agreed.
Alissa
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
