> That seems reasonable for an experimental RFC. If someday this gets promoted
> to standards track, we would probably want to readdress it.
Okay, I’ll move the reference to RFC 6280 out from the Security Considerations
section and into the Geo LCAF section with text suggested by Joel.
Dino
> That's not really what I had in mind. RFC6280 has considerations that apply
> do the design of protocols that can transfer location objects, not just their
> use or implementation. My question was whether the working group had
> considered whether they apply to this document. I'm not saying
On 14 Oct 2016, at 3:46, Dino Farinacci wrote:
Section 4.3 talks about geo coordinates. I think I understand that
these
coordinates may give the location of a device. Is there any
expectation
that said device can be associated with a person? The security
considerations mention this briefly.
> Section 4.3 talks about geo coordinates. I think I understand that these
> coordinates may give the location of a device. Is there any expectation
> that said device can be associated with a person? The security
> considerations mention this briefly. Have the working group considered
> whether
