>
>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.
We don't sacrifice the privacy of the Target if the security mechanisms
described in the document are applied.
>In hindsight, some transition mechanisms have caused many problems.
>Remember the gray-beards screaming about NATs?
Actually, this is a very good example where the industry just did
something because the IETF did not react to the practical needs.
Protocol design requires more than just technical requirements but also
insight into the properly shared responsibilities and incentives.
Ciao
Hannes
>
>-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
