An LS that receives Rules exclusively through LOs MUST examine the
Rules that accompany a given LO in order to determine how the LS may
use the LO (if any Rules are included by reference, the LS SHOULD
attempt to download them). If the LO includes no Rules that allow
the LS to transmit the LO to another entity, then the LS MUST NOT
transmit the LO. If the LO contains no Rules at all (if it is in a
format with no Rules syntax, for example), then the LS MUST delete it
(emergency services provide an exception in that Rules can be
implicit; see [15]). If the LO included Rules by reference, but
these Rules were not obtained for any reason, the LS MUST NOT
transmit the LO and MUST delete it.
Here is the suggested change:
OLD:
If the LO included Rules by reference, but
these Rules were not obtained for any reason, the LS MUST NOT
transmit the LO and MUST delete it.
NEW:
If the LO included Rules by reference, but
these Rules were not obtained for any reason, the LS MUST NOT
transmit the LO and MUST adere to the provided value in the retention-expires field.
The change has been proposed to clarify that
a) if the LS does not want to re-transmit location information then it does not immediately have to delete
the received location object but instead looks at the retention-expires field only.
b) if the LS wants to transmit location information it is not allowed to do so. The retention-expires field would also give guidance on how long it is permitted to keep the location.
Since this is a change to normative language, if folks have objections to it we're requesting that they send them to the list by next Wednesday, July 13.
Thanks,
Alissa
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
