The last time we were discussing lo-sec, it was obvious that some
clarity was needed about a single entity performing multiple Geopriv
roles. Throughout the new version of the document, we've tried to make
that clear, both by stating it explicitly ("It is not uncommon for the
same entity to perform both the LG and LS roles, or both the LR and LS
roles." in section 2), and by consistently referring to "the entity
acting as L_" or the "the entity performing the role of L_".
This holds true for LIS as much as any other Geopriv role. Nothing
prevents an entity acting as a LIS from also acting as an LS. Perhaps
my one-sentence description was more confusing/objectionable than the
text itself. From section 3.2.2:
> Some performing the Location Generator role are designed only to
> provide Targets with their own locations (as opposed to distributing
> a Target's location to others). The process of providing a Target
> with its own location is known within Geopriv as Location
> Configuration, and the LG that provides such location is often
> described as a Location Information Server (LIS). Protocols used
> exclusively to communicate location from a LIS to a Target are known
> as Location Configuration Protocols [8]. Several such protocols have
> been developed within Geopriv [9][10][11][12].
> By definition, a LIS needs only to follow a simple privacy-
> preserving policy: transmit a Target's location only to the Target
> itself. This is known as the "LCP policy."
> Importantly, if an LS is also serving in the role of LG and it has
> not been provisioned with Privacy Rules for a particular Target, it
> MUST follow the LCP policy, whether it is a LIS or not. In the
> positioning phase, an entity serving the roles of both LG and LS
> that has not received Privacy Rules must follow this policy. The
> same is true for any LS in the distribution phase.
The notion of a LIS in the role that provides a Target with its own
location seems to be supported in the rest of our existing geopriv
documents (lis-discovery, lbyr-requirements, held, l7-lcp-ps). Can you
provide references that instead point to LIS as a dereference server
that responds to any LR's request?
Also, we will get authors/acknowledgements squared away in a
subsequent draft.
Alissa
On Jul 14, 2009, at 4:35 AM, Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk wrote:
>
> > >* Location configuration is called out explicitly. LIS is defined
> as a
> > >special case of LG that only provides a Target with its own
> location.
> >
> > err, this is yet another definition change in the grand scheme of
> Geopriv...
> >
> > so, a LIS is an LCP server, and what is the destination of
> > subscriptions for dereferences - but only by the target itself, not
> > dereferences by other entities?
>
> I'm not happy with this either.
>
> What are the motives for this change? It seems to me that
> generically a "LIS" is widely taken to mean anything that implements
> HELD (or similar?) regardless of who is requesting the location and
> to restrict the terminology now seems rather odd.
>
> Ray
>
> --
> Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET
> Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet
> e: ray@nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
