On 10 April 2014 07:15, Jari Arkko <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> A lot has happened since RFC 3455 was published. The privacy considerations >> around the use of P-Access-Network-Info are unchanged from their pre-Geopriv >> form. In particular, I find the UA knowledge part to be problematic; >> Geopriv definitions can probably help here. >> >> [RJ] sorry cannot do > > I think a better approach would be to describe the issues, rather than try to > change what the implementations do, if that is what you meant by using > Geopriv definitions.
Yes, a description of the issues would be appropriate. I don't expect to change anything here, but this is a very poorly understood architecture with privacy properties that are challenging. Making those properties clearer is - I believe - entirely appropriate. Geopriv [RFC6280] has tools that you can use - a framework of terms and concepts - that should make this relatively easy to achieve. It shouldn't require more than a couple of paragraphs. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
