Since we agree on this, can we agree that this text isn't helpful:
"
As a matter of practice within DHCP, a server sending one version of Option 123 to a client followed by the other version (in the same response or a separate response) does not allow clients to retain both versions in memory. Receiving two copies of the same Option causes the client to replace the old information with the new information of the same Option (123 in this case). Therefore it is not useful for a server to send both v0 and v1 options to the client.
"
The first sentence implies (to me) that it's possible to send both versions, which is a little misleading. I'm pretty sure that the second is only true if the copies are in different messages.
And instead use the text that I proposed.
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg07431.html>
Maybe changing the first sentence to:
A server that provides location information cannot provide both v0 and v1 formats.
--Martin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, 3 July 2009 3:18 PM
> To: Thomson, Martin; Spencer Dawkins; bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] [geopriv] #10: Server Version Support (was:
> Should not encourage use of "old" encoding)
>
> At 10:38 PM 7/2/2009, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> >You can't rely on the server being able to send a second option.
>
> correct, but I didn't think I implied that.
>
> >If it's at the end of a lease, that could be hours away; far too
> >long a time to be useful.
> >
> >You also cannot rely on a client ignoring a version that it doesn't
> >support and retaining the version that it does.
>
> I think the behavior is pretty much set, get the first - use the
> first, until a second is received; then purge the first and replace
> it with the second, then use the second; and so on...
>
> >It will keep the most recent, and if that's not supported, then it
> >will have to assume that it can't use any location information.
>
> agreed, and this should be avoided
>
> >After all, it doesn't necessarily know that it hasn't moved.
> >
> >It's ultimately pointless attempting to use multiple messages to
> >deal with this problem.
>
> I agree
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
