RE: full integrity?

I think intentionally degrading accuracy, or outright
misinformation is sufficient, and multiple locations are
a complication we don't need.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randall Gellens [mailto:rg+ietf@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 4:49 PM
> To: Dan Greening; ietf-geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: full integrity?
>
>
> 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 16:59:17 2002