Requirements for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism
RFC 5808
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes
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
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection