Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Some more HELD comments

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:00:13 -0500

I see your point. So, we have to change more than just adding a list
item, since this point spans both of the categories.  I would propose to
just flatten the structure of that section and delete the individual
accuracy section altogether, and pull the list up following the list
items of accuracy and Privacy/confidentiality. 

I will add a new item 3 and shift the current 3 and 4 down (and
appropriately change that paragraph to reflect the new item).  The text
relating to that new item 3 is already covered in section 10.2 (Privacy
and Confidentiality), so I'll add the appropriate text to the paragraph
following the list item to reference that section. 

Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Brian Rosen
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:26 AM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); Rosen, Brian; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Some more HELD comments

I am fine with all of your responses.  For this item:

>In 10.1, shouldn't you add a new step between 2 and 3 "3. The LIS must 
>be able to identify the device by its identifier (IP Address)."  Adding

>that would require minor tweaking of the following paragraph.
>[MB] Is this really an "accuracy" issue or is a Privacy and 
>Confidentiality issue (per section 10.2)? [/MB]

I think it's both.  To get the right location, you need the right
identifier.  That's why it belongs in 10.1.  If a VPN gave you the wrong
identifier, you get the wrong location.

It's also a privacy issue because if you can spoof an IP address, you
can get some one else's location.

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv