At 8:11 AM -0700 5/22/02, Dan Greening wrote:
> So if bogus (or self-naming) is allowed, then we need to put safeguards
> in place, just as are in place today for email (open-relay rejection,
> intermediate node signing/tracking and so forth, and signed original
> messages).
This seems to me to be a totally separate issue from what I mentioned.
I was trying to get an idea of how wg participants felt about
accuracy adjustments being the primary method of disclosure control,
as opposed to also allowing multiple locations.
The example I gave was in the context of some protocol where geopriv
is used, I ask you for something, before you reply you ask me for my
location. I don't want you to know where I am. I can either send
you a vague location, or I can send you multiple locations, one of
which is correct. Earlier in the life of this group, people
expressed a desire to be able to do the latter, in addition to the
former. Very recently someone stated that the later should not be
permitted. I'd like to get an idea of how the group feels about this.
Received on Wed May 22 16:51:36 2002
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:32:23 EST