> We're talking past one another. Each time you re-assure me > that there's nothing to worry about but don't say how to > deal with the case about which I'm asking. Maybe if someone > else were to try respond that'd get us out of that loop? :-)
The chairs are going to respond so we can get out of this loop. > Had you pointed at that draft before? If so, I guess I > missed it (and sorry about that). However, BCP160 is > *still* not a useful reference there or here, and I was > not suggesting referring to that draft (of whose existence > I wasn't aware;-). If your argument is that the privacy > considerations related to this section of the lcaf draft > are dealt with in that lisp-geo draft, then yes I would > argue that it needs to be referred to, but I think it'd > be better to call out here that location information is > privacy sensitive and ought not be used unless it's needed. > (And that latter is not stated in the lisp-geo draft.) I can certainly refer to it as well as the NAT-traversal draft. But want the chairs to give me their approval. > Does it support long-term symmetric keys stored in the > format defined here? If so, then more text on that is > needed somewhere. If the lcaf format is only for public > keys, then it's ok already. There is no long-term key storage. The format is used only in message exchange. > We don't need a mediator. If the WG chairs or AD say that the > WG want all this text, then I'll move to an abstain once we've > sorted the other discuss points. Okay, sounds good. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
