> However, I agree with your central theme, which is that you can't
> realistically have fine-grain control over everything, and yet you
> want to. I'm all for practical answers to knotty problems.
> And, for sure, not everyone will be happy. So long as we have a
> middle ground, and not one or the other extreme, I'll live with it.
>
> Once again, I'd really like to get to the actual requirements, in
> requirements language, and stop beating around the bush (no pun
> intended) with vague concepts.
Actually I feel like we are discussing the same things in the spatial BOF
mailing list again and again.
Without new mechanisms/protocols or major modifications to them, I agree
with what Brian said so far (you can not have a new, fancy privacy control
mechanism by end-users). And what he said is written in the draft
(draft-rosen-geopriv-requirements-00.txt). Why do not you use the draft and
comment on it as a start point? I propose to delete the Sections 6, 7, 8
and 10 (they are related to protocols) and add use scenarios/threat
analysis.
Kenji
Received on Mon Sep 10 20:44:40 2001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:32:22 EST