RE: Radius-Geopriv: Civic vs. geospatial location information

["Adrangi, Farid" <farid.adrangi@intel.com>]

We also said that we can make all attributes / information-elements in
the draft optional.  Organization like GSMA, CDG, WFA will worry about
MUST/SHOULD. For example, GSMA IR61 and 3GPP CN4 specification require
only a subset of these attributes/information-elements.
BR,
Farid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tschofenig Hannes
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 1:06 AM
> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Radius-Geopriv: Civic vs. geospatial location information
> 
> 
> hi all, 
> 
> currently the document says that civic location information MUST be
> provided. Jari proposed to change the MUST into a SHOULD.
> 
> we had a discussion on this issue during the geopriv meeting 
> and i had the
> impression that it is ok to change the MUST into a SHOULD. 
> 
> ciao
> hannes
> 
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>
> 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>