The same guys who previously said that they do not need any guidance about user interface aspects or other recommendations claimed at the workshop that they should have had them in the spec.
This is probably the most useful advice we can give regarding privacy in the entire document. I would rather replace the text about the DHCP authentication option, which isn't deployable.
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:18:59 -0400
> Von: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
> An: "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
> CC: Marc Linsner begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting <mlinsner@cisco.com>, geopriv@ietf.org, hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com
> Betreff: Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis
> We seem to be more in danger of replicating
>
> http://www.rinkworks.com/said/warnings.shtml
>
> On Aug 10, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> > The security consideration section in the draft is there to indicate
> what the potential risks are and what should be done about them.
> >
> > I have heard someone saying that "64kb ought to be enough for
> everyone"...
> >
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
