I didn't say it wasn't possible. Your examples don't sacrifice the overall
goal/characteristics of the 'next-generation' technology and neither will we
sacrifice the end-user's security of privacy to location information the
group was created to work on.
In hindsight, some transition mechanisms have caused many problems.
Remember the gray-beards screaming about NATs?
-Marc-
On 9/17/09 12:43 PM, "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)"
<hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com> wrote:
> Well. Think about all the work that is going on in the IETF when it
> comes to transition architectures and considering not-updated devices. I
> believe that there is now in the IETF more interest to meet the
> expectations of the deployment rather than designing clean-slate
> architectures.
>
> Example to support my statement: Proxy Mobile IP, IPv4/IPv6 transition
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> PS: I very strongly believe that we have to care about the intermediate
> deployment stages as well since we otherwise will never get to the final
> stage either.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of ext Marc Linsner
> Sent: 17 September, 2009 19:36
> To: Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk
> Cc: GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] WG2LC:
> draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-00.txt
>
>
> Ray,
>
> You won't find too much sympathy in the IETF for not wanting to
> upgrade. We're talking about computing devices, not too many deployed
> that don't require upgrades. I believe the black-jack game on my iPhone
> has been upgraded at least 4 times in the 8 month life of the phone (and
> the OS at least 3 times).
>
> OBO is, IMO, from an end-user pov, a privacy disaster waiting to
> happen. But, with proper authentication and authorization it might be
> doable within the constraints of GeoPriv.
>
> -Marc-
>
> On 9/17/09 12:05 PM, "Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk"
> <Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> I'm also not sure that NENA is asking for
> third-party/OBO, I believe it's
>> SPs asking for it. NENA simply wants location
> included with call setup.
>
> Getting location included with call setup requires
> software and/or firmware updates to every (mobile) SIP device on the
> planet.
>
> NICC therefore wants OBO, because in the short-to-medium
> term it's the only way to get location without requiring those device
> updates.
>
> OBO can work now, with the only pre-requisite being
> deployment of LIS's on each IP access network. Those LIS's will be
> required for first party queries anyway, for those devices that don't
> have GPS capablity.
>
> Ray
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
