This discussion might make sense as a preface to the discussion on assumptions. Can I request that you draft a few paragraphs that introduces the subject and how we're planning to apply it?
On 2011-04-22 at 19:23:55, Jorge Cuellar wrote:
> > Discrete location assumption: An algorithm SHOULD protect a discrete
> > location that is remote from adjacent known locations. This
> assumption
> > might be useful to an adversary if the location of the Target is
> known
> > only at discrete points without known locations in between. For
> > example, a person that disables location tracking in transit between
> > two points might only have known locations at either end of the
> > journey.
>
> It looks good, but did not understand it fully: How far is "remote"?
> What is an "adjacent known location"? If the location of a target is
> known at discrete points, then the locations visited in the meantime
> should also be protected, you mean something like that?
Yeah, that text doesn't read so well to me either. It might be necessary to handle contiguous and non-contiguous paths in some other part of the discussion.
--Martin
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
