This sounds reasonable.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Harasty, Daniel J <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > > -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
