>A good, clear summary.
>
>You didn't mention access control policy, but that's probably OK for
>the purposes of the discussion at hand.
>
>On the last paragraph, I think that Richard suggested that there be a
>recommendation (though not a 2119 SHOULD) that the expiration be
>longer than the lease time.
err...
I'm thoroughly confused.
the current WG chair and the AD in the Int area (aka the previous WG
chair from the WG's inception) both have a fundamental problem with
the whole idea of more than one lifetime timer (i.e., lease). How can
anyone here be advocating what they have said needs to go at this late stage?
James
>The only reason being that it's probably
>sensible to ensure that a host always has a valid location URI.
>
>--Martin
>
>On 9 December 2011 07:18, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:
> > Please take a look at
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg12238.html
> >
> > If you have anything to add, or more importantly, if you see
> something I got
> > wrong that you need
> > to correct, please do so on the dhcwg list.
> >
> > RjS
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
