Hi all,
The purpose of the document is to creates a registry for location types.
These values are used in <draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-09.txt> and
<draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-04.txt>. The document can be used for RPID
<draft-ietf-simple-rpid-10.txt> but this is not done today. As noted in
the review the xml schema in RPID as currently defined needs to be
modified to use the values in the registry. This is subject to a
discussion in the simple mailing list regarding the work on RPID.
I would like to address a few review comments:
- We don't need to describe the usage of location type values in the
"Location Types Registry" document. Other documents provide this
information already. As such, we do not need to consider the usage of
location type values in the "Location Types Registry" document with
respect to possible security considerations. The meaning of multiple
values or a sequence of values is not a topic for the registry.
- The values listed in the "Location Types Registry" document are not
displayed to the user. As such, we don't cover internationalization
support.
- The definition of the values and the selected location types is chosen
to the best of our knowledge. If there are better definitions please let
us know.
- Registration policy: We thought that FCFS would be an acceptable
policy. Some people had a different view about it. Fine. I have no
problems changing it to expert review.
- I am not sure it is a good idea to create a separate registry in the
dhcp-civic, in the radius-geopriv and the RPID draft in order to
associate the usage of the values defined in the registry with the
specific usage document.
I also saw some good comments about the IANA consideration section. We
will reflect these comments in the draft update.
Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf