Re: [Geopriv] Geopriv L7 LCP: New Requirement

From: Andrew Newton ^lt;andy@hxr.us>
Date: Thu Feb 15 2007 - 20:49:53 EST

On Feb 15, 2007, at 5:04 PM, Dawson, Martin wrote:

> I agree with Andy - I think you could come up with the same scheme for
> identity communication; it's just a protocol after all.

Which, btw, could be used with any of the LbyR protocols. I mention
SIP because it is closest to RFC. But this could be easily applied
to other any of the HTTP LbyR proposals. In fact, this sounds like a
great requirement to be added to the LbyR requirements.

> I just don't see why you would suddenly want to use a different
> protocol
> for this special case of an OBO. I don't see any value in that.

Suddenly? What is so sudden about this?

But I do agree with OBO being the special case. And the advantage of
divorcing it from L7-LCP work is that it can then be applied more
broadly, across environments that use different LCPs. That would
seem to be a tremendous benefit.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:49:53 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 15 2007 - 20:49:32 EST