------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter: bernard_aboba@… | Owner: bernard_aboba@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: draft-ietf-geopriv-3825bis
Component: rfc3825bis | Version: 1.0
Severity: Waiting for Shepherd Writeup | Keywords:
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Comment(by martin.thomson@…):
A lot of the text cited in this issue is lifted directly from RFC 4776. I
tend to think that most of it is a too wordy.
What is potentially of use is the citation of RFC 3693. The rest of the
actual concerns are covered to some extent already, albeit in a cursory
fashion.
A fault that both sets of text share is an overly strong reliance on
"SHOULD". There is little guidance to an implementer on what sort of
reasons might be acceptable for ignoring the "SHOULD".
The first SHOULD applies to RFC 3118, so we can take it as read that it
will be ignored; the second SHOULD talks about not providing location
unless requested, which I think can be addressed by allowing servers to
have some prior knowledge about clients.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/37#comment:1>
geopriv <http://tools.ietf.org/geopriv/>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
