in-line below
At 06:16 PM 7/26/2009, Winterbottom, James wrote:
>Hi James,
>
>This is a question only, but is something that I have puzzled over now
>for a while and it is very unclear to me how you will get the following
>to work.
>
>"This Option can be useful in WiMAX connected endpoints or IP
> cellular endpoints. The location URI Option can be configured as a
> client if there is a router, such as a residential home gateway,
> with the ability to communicate to downstream endpoints as a server.
>
> How an LS challenges a dereference can vary, and a policy
> established by a rulemaker [RFC3693] for a Location Target as to
> what type of challenge(s) is to be used, how strong a challenge is
> used or how precise the location information is given to a
> requestor. All of this is outside the scope of this document (since
> this will not be accomplished using DHCP)."
>
>
>If I understand what this text is saying, then my DSL modem at home
>could be given a location URI by my ISP, and all devices inside my house
>would be given the same location URI yes?
they can, yes - but this doesn't mean they MUST in all cases.
>In this case I now have multiple targets, not just devices, but targets
>being located through the same location URI,
yes, with you so far...
>and you have explicitly
>called out that geopolicy or common policy is going to be used and not
>possession model.
with you so far...
>How, in the case described above can each Target have
>its own geopolicy
who says each target has to have its own policy. Every target within
a residence *can* have the same policy, or different policies (the
latter being an administrative choice by the ruleholder -- i.e., the
SP that's providing the service.
>, and how can the LIS distinguish which policy to
>invoke given that they all tied to the same location URI?
well, if all the targets are in the same residential address, they
don't need or require their own policy, necessarily - do they? In
fact, why would they in that circumstance (if in fact all targets are
at the same civic address, receiving their location from the same
residential gateway)?
>If I have misunderstood what it is you are saying, then could you
>clarify it a bit please. If I haven't, then can we either have a
>statement to say don't use this option in this configuration, or provide
>a suitable explanation as to how the problem is overcome.
I don't see this as a problem. I believe this is a configuration
issue, and not a protocol issue. Opeerators could choose to have this
enabled (i.e., all targets at the same civic address get the same
location URI), or disabled (all targets get unique location URIs). We
should NOT be who decides this for every operator on the planet.
I expect customer RFPs to define what they want in a company's
products about these optional decisions in the protocol. That's
where Andrew and Cisco can decide to offer products that do or not do
what a particular Operator (i.e., customer) wants - on the chance
that not doing what they want means the other company gets the deal
(and revenue).
James
>Cheers
>James
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
>Behalf
> > Of James M. Polk
> > Sent: Monday, 27 July 2009 7:20 AM
> > To: Hannes Tschofenig
> > Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] My review ofdraft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-
> > option-05
> >
> > btw - sorry you are not coming to Stockholm. I hope you get better
> > quickly.
> >
> > At 12:58 PM 7/26/2009, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> > >Hi James,
> > >
> > >Thanks for the quick response.
> > >
> > > >Hannes
> > > >
> > > >Thanks for the review
> > > >
> > > >comments in-line
> > > >
> > > >At 01:26 AM 7/20/2009, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Hi James,
> > > >>
> > > >>Thanks for the update. I have compiled my comments into the MS
>word
> > > >>with track changes and turned it into a PDF. <<...>>
> > > >
> > > >thanks for this format
> > >
> > >I could also send you the word document, if that makes things easier.
> >
> >
> > >It is very difficult to type these editorial suggestions into a mail.
> >
> > I agree, which is why I do this type of review often in WORD with
> > Track Changes turned on, so the author can see where I make all my
> > small comments, and how I'd rewrite a sentence - like you did here.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>There are a bunch of editorial suggestions; maybe they are useful.
> > > >
> > > >I'm frustrated by some of the comments and suggestions because
> > > >- in some cases - they hack apart text that's been
> > > >(unmodified) in the document since the individual -00 was
> > > >submitted way more than 2 years ago, and no comments were made
> > > >until now. Makes me think I continually have to hit a moving
>target...
> > >
> > >If you think that the editorial comments do not help then leave it as
>is.
> > >
> > >
> > >Why do I send editorial comments so late? Well, for me it makes a lot
>of
> > >sense to provide them with a stable version rather than with an early
> > >version. Early document versions tend to change a lot making any
>previous
> > >editorial comments irrelevant.
> >
> > well, it also gives an author a false sense of stability when someone
> > brings up one or two suggestions that are big, the author believes
> > "if I just satisfy *these*, I'll have this commenter's concerns
> > met"... This gives an author a mental note as to ticking off each
> > commenter - until there are none, which is when the author believes
> > that particular document is fairly stable, and can ask the chairs for
> > WGLC believing they have satisfied all comments.
> >
> > I've asked the chairs for WGLC for several meetings, believing I'm
> > nearly at the finish line. You review makes me think I'm way back
> > near the starting line, as you ask me to justify about 15 different
> > pieces of text. The ID isn't that long, and 15 things need to be
> > adjusted with explanation... it's frustrating, you know.
> >
> > it also delays RFC publication by a year or two, if others are
> > following this method.
> >
> > That said - perhaps the chairs ought to WGLC this to get all the
> > comments in at once, and I'll only have to rewrite this ID the one
> > (long) time ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >another frustration is with the "entity= attribute" vs.
> > > >"device ID element" discussion - which several on this list
> > > >don't seem to want to separate - and they are separate topics.
> > > > The entity= attribute is equivalent to an AOR in SIP (i.e.,
> > > >it is the presentity's URI), but the <deviceID> element is
> > > >equivalent to a MAC address. Both are identifiers, but one can
> > > >change and the other is fixed for the life of that device.
> > > >
> > > >When Hannes logs onto two devices, the two devices each have
> > > >unique identifiers (i.e., unique MAC addresses), but Hannes'
> > > >presentity URI is the same for both devices, unless the URI
> > > >has a host part embedded within the URI (analogous to a SIP
> > > >AOR vs. a Contact Address). The user part and the domain part
> > > >of the URIs are still the same. The two identifiers should
> > > >never be considered the same - and all the discussion about
> > > >interchanging the meanings of entity= and device should never
>happen.
> > > >
> > > >but it still does...
> > >
> > >I didn't see a discussion of 'entity' attribute vs. <deviceID>
>element in
> > >draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-05.txt.
> >
> > you inserted the word "device" into the paragraph at the bottom of
> > page 6 - which is counter to the discussion we've been having about
> > entity= attribute vs. <deviceID> element on this list, as well as on
> > SIPCORE's list.
> >
> > I specifically know DHCP isn't going to assign a device's ID (which
> > most likely is its MAC address - per RFC 4479).
> >
> > that coupled with the paragraph you quoted towards me regarding the
> > HELD ID (section 6 - which interchanged the meanings of entity=
> > attribute and the <deviceID> element), has me sensitive to what you
> > understand about this word you insserted. Which is why I wrote the
> > two "frustration" paragraphs above in this thread.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >That said - some comments, however, seem to be fine and I'll
> > > >modify the text accordingly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>There is only one major comment: It is good that you describe the
> > > >>security model you focus on. It seems that you settled with the
> > > >>authorization model in comparison to the possession model. That's
> > > >>fine with me given the lack of confidentiality protection in DHCP.
> > > >
> > > >ok, glad you think this is ok moving forward...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Now, in order to get it to work in an interoperable fashion you
> > > >>would have to make Geolocation Policy and XCAP a normative
>reference
> > > >>(mandatory to implement).
> > > >
> > > >I have Geolocation Policy as informative now (and have had it in
> > > >there for a while), and I can make this normative, but I don't yet
> > > >see how making XCAP explicitly normative is necessary.
> > >
> > >My thinking was the following:
> > >http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-21.txt does not
>define a
> > >mandatory-to-implement transport to uploading the policy.
> >
> > and how do you want me to add this into a (what should be simple)
> > DHCP extension ID?
> >
> > Here is where I believe you are getting too into an architecture for
>this
> > ID.
> >
> >
> > >If we do not define one in this document then we end up with the
> > situation
> > >where the end host and the DHCP server understand the same
>authorization
> > >policy format but the policies cannot be uploaded.
> > >
> > >That's why I was suggesting to add XCAP to the normative references.
> > Maybe
> > >XCAP needs to be normatively referenced in the geolocation policy
> > document?!
> >
> > err, since that doc doesn't "...define a mandatory-to-implement
> > transport to uploading the policy." to you your words from above, I'm
> > thinking that is where XCAP ought to be defined, and not a DHCP doc,
> > which would only cover DHCP -- whereas the geolocation policy
> > document needs to cover all policy uploading for Geopriv, right?
> >
> >
> >
> > >I don't know what would be more appropriate.
> >
> > I clearly believe our geolocation policy document should contain the
> > transport mandates vs. a singular LCP protocol.
> >
> > BTW -- using the other logic, that means HELD needs to also define
> > this "mandatory-to-implement transport to uploading the policy." --
> > but I doubt it does today.
> >
> > Instead of putting this into each LCP doc, why don't we put it into
> > the Policy doc *once*, taking care of all LCPs at once?
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> > > > If you
> > > >believe it is to get Geolocation Policy to work, then making
> > > >Geolocation Policy normative ought to be enough, don't you think?
>If
> > > >not, exactly which piece of text in this ID do I place the XCAP
> > > >reference directly next to?
> > > >
> > >
> > >Ciao
> > >Hannes
> > >
> > > >>I cannot see it would work otherwise.
> > > >>
> > > >>Ciao
> > > >>Hannes
> > > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > Geopriv@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
