Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
To: "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
Cc: <geopriv@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] geopriv-arch AUTH48
> +1
>
> On Jul 8, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
>> Fine for me.
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> draft-ietf-geopriv-arch-03 is in AUTH48 and the authors have suggested a
>>> slight change to some normative language in section 4.2.4. Here is the
>>> section:
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
