Requirements for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism
RFC 5808

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2009-10-22 for -)
No email
send info
I like the document.

1.  Introduction

   As justification for a LbyR model, consider the circumstance that in
   some mobile networks it is not efficient for the end host to
   periodically query the Location Information Server (LIS) for up-to-
   date location information.  This is especially the case when ower

Did you mean "owner"?

   availability is a constraint or when a location update is not
   immediately needed.

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-10-22 for -)
No email
send info
Section 1 has the phrase "This is especially the case when ower availability is a constraint" -- I can't understand this phrase even if I try "owner" for "ower"



Section 1 says "Note that this document makes no differentiation between a Location Server (LS), per [RFC3693], and a Location Information Server (LIS),"

but diagram 1 explicitly differentiates between them so the Note is false.

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info