~snip~
>
>What you stated above is good, but it really makes me question
>why we have done all the work in Common or Geolocation Policy
>because if it weren't for DHCP, neither appears to have been
>useful at all.
>
>Am I wrong in that conclusion?
Common Policy and Geolocation policy is a good mechanism for usage with a
Location Server but not for a LIS (in my opinion).
I have the following model in mind (copied from
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-garcia-geopriv-indirect-publish-00 and
modified):
+------------+
| Location |
| Recipient |
| |
| |
+------------+
^
|Location
|Request/
|Response
|(3)
|
v
+-----------+ +------------+
| | | Location |
| LIS | | Server |
| | | (+Policies)|
| | | |
+-----------+ +------------+
^ ^
| Geopriv //
| Location //
| Configuration //
| Protocol //
| (1) //
| // Geopriv Location
v // Conveyance Protocol
+-----------+ // (e.g., SIP)
| Device | // (2)
| |v
| |
+-----------+
Figure: Location by Value
+------------+
| Location |
| Recipient |
| |
| |
+------------+
^
|Location
|Request/
|Response
|(4)
|
v
+-----------+ Geopriv +------------+
| | Location | Location |
| LIS |<------------->| Server |
| | Dereference | (+Policies)|
| | Protocol (3) | |
+-----------+ +------------+
^ ^
| Geopriv //
| Location //
| Configuration //
| Protocol //
| (1) //
| // Geopriv Location
v // Conveyance Protocol
+-----------+ // (e.g., SIP)
| Device | // (2)
| |v
| |
+-----------+
Figure: Location by Reference
>
>
>>Finally, as you know: The geolocation policy document provides only
>>location-based authorization and transformations for location
>>information. The most important features one needs are for
>the purpose
>>discussed here is, however, authorization based on the
>**identity** of
>>the location recipient.
>
>So, while not disagreeing with you at all, I'm still
>struggling to understand why referencing RFC 4745 isn't enough
>for the DHCP location URI doc? Why does this ID need to go
>into all the additional details since it is merely a delivery
>system piece of the soltion?
A reference to RFC 4745 is a first step, certainly. But it leaves the
question open of how the XML documents get to the LIS.
Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
