I have two questions for the group to discuss during IETF LC:
1) Why is this draft a BCP? It is updating two Informational documents.
It adds some normative language (particularly in section 3.2) that might
push it into BCP territory. It would be worth re-reading the document from
thinking about which of these requirements are restatements of requirements
in other documents, which are new requirements on protocols, and which are
new requirements on implementations and deployments (my read is that there are
new requirements here in the last category and it would help to highlight that
in the draft).
2) The RECOMMENDED policy of "Intersection" (actually the very existence
of the policy) seems to be at odds with the general principle of additivity
for rules. Can text be added explaining why this conflict is appropriate?
RjS
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
