I think that would be clearer...
I'm not actually suggesting text, but what I'm seeing is making me think
this might be clearer if you explicitly say ""unlikely to have the
information necessary to determine an accurate location, although for some
applications, an inaccurate location might be preferable to no location at
all", or something similar. But you already answered my question, so just do
the right thing :-)
Spencer
> Thanks Spencer.
>
> A valid concern. All "SHOULD"s MUST be explained.
>
> For the most part, your question is answered by the following paragraph.
> Some devices are unaware of the existence of a VPN tunnel. Thus,
> sometimes its unavoidable that discovery is attempted on these interfaces.
>
> Also, as implied by the second sentence, there's no inherent reason why a
> LIS on the remote side of a tunnel couldn't provide valid location (it
> requires that the LIS has some knowledge, but I can imagine cases where
> that might be possible).
>
> Do you think that it would be clearer if this were in "MUST-unless" form?
>
> A Device MUST avoid performing LIS discovery over a VPN network
> interface unless discovery on other interfaces is unsuccessful. A LIS
> discovered in this way is unlikely to have the information necessary
> to determine an accurate location.
>
> Not all interfaces connected to a VPN can be detected by devices or
> the software running on them. In these cases, it might be that a LIS
> on
> the remote side of a VPN is inadvertently discovered. A LIS MUST NOT
> provide location...
>
> --Martin
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer@wonderhamster.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 October 2009 7:29 AM
>> To: draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery@tools.ietf.org
>> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-11
>>
>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)reviewer
>> for
>> this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please
>> seehttp://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).Please
>> resolve
>> these comments along with any other Last Call commentsyou may
>> receive.Document: draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-11Reviewer: Spencer
>> Dawkins
>> Review Date: 2009-10-21
>> IETF LC End Date: 2009-10-29
>> IESG Telechat date: (not known)
>>
>> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed
>> Standard.
>>
>> I have one minor question, as follows:
>>
>> 2.2. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
>>
>> LIS discovery over a VPN network interface SHOULD NOT be performed.
>> A LIS discovered in this way is unlikely to have the information
>> necessary to determine an accurate location.
>>
>> Spencer (minor): I'm having a difficult time imagining why this is a
>> SHOULD
>> and not a MUST. When is LIS discovery over a VPN would be the *right*
>> thing
>> to do? I note that the related text in the following paragraph is "MUST
>> NOT
>> unless" - I'd be more comfortable seeing similar text here.
>>
>> Not all interfaces connected to a VPN can be detected by devices or
>> the software running on them. A LIS MUST NOT provide location
>> information in response to requests that it can identify as
>> originating from a device on the remote end of a VPN tunnel, unless
>> it is able to accurately determine location. The "notLocatable"
>> HELD
>> error code can be used to indicate to a device that discovery has
>> revealed an unsuitable LIS. This ensures that even if a device
>> discovers a LIS over the VPN, it does not rely on a LIS that is
>> unable to provide accurate location information.
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
