I'd like to comment some of Sanjeev's input. I prefer to send independent replies on each topic, as that way a given email thread is about a single topic (more or less).
Sanjeev mentioned: From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:31 AM [...] 1. Section 2.2 states Slave device as a device without geolocation capability. I think the phrasing there need to be different. A Slave device may or may not have geolocation capability, but does not directly query the database. Also a mobile Slave device, can it not switch as master device in adhoc? [...] I agree with the nature of his comment: a Slave device may well have geolocation capabilities; however PAWS does not expect it needs to use them to communicate with a Master device. I would support an update to the definition of Slave.
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
