Re: [Geopriv] Geopriv L7 LCP: New Requirement

From: Henning Schulzrinne ^lt;hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Sat Feb 10 2007 - 15:24:09 EST

I don't see the difference of this compared to passing a location-
retrieving URI to the third party.

To ensure any kind of security, the target has to provide credentials
to the third party - which is essentially what the randomized URI
does. (You'd presumably want these credentials to be time-limited, too.)

Henning

On Feb 10, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Otmar raised some interesting aspects as part of his review of
> <draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00.txt> that are very relevant for
> this working group since he raised a new requirement in context of
> the Geopriv L7 LCP work. He refers to the "on-behalf-of"
> functionality where a solution for HELD can be found in http://
> tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-
> extensions-00.txt.
>
> The basic requirement is quite simple and known to everyone: "A
> entity (other than the Target) asks on behalf of the Target for the
> location information information of the Target."
>
> I don't recall that we ever discussed this requirement in the
> design team (because it was not raised) but Otmar thinks it is
> relevant.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:24:09 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 10 2007 - 15:23:40 EST