Re: [Geopriv] Confused about draft-polk-geopriv-pidf-lo-4-agps-00.txt

[Richard Barnes <rbarnes at bbn.com>]

I think where Hannes was going is that this document does make a 
meaningful change to the SIP presence system.  It does so by including a 
new type of information, which could introduce different privacy risks.

This extension is analogous to the transition between PIDF and PIDF-LO: 
 You're still just putting a PIDF in SUB/NOT.  There are two separate 
RFCs to deal with that extension (3693/3694).  So even though you're 
just adding something to a PIDF (or PIDF-LO), there might still be cause 
for some security and privacy discussions.

--Richard

James M. Polk wrote:
> At 02:03 PM 7/17/2008, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> > Hannes
> >
> > PS: You write "poses zero new security or privacy concerns relative to
> > Conveyance."
> >
> > Let me give you something to think about: When you change one protocol
> > name against another one then do you think that the fundamental privacy
> > & security aspects are suddenly different?
>
> "one protocol against another"
>
> huh?
>
> Conveyance already has PIDF-LO within SIP SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY.
>
> There is nothing new in either of these IDs relative putting a PIDF-LO 
> in SUBSCRIBE or NOTIFY.
>
> What do you see that's fundamentally different?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv