> What they were trying to tell me is that DHCP is a
> simple protocol, and not to clutter it up with so many different
> possible combinations - each of which are unique to each client.
What I think is being suggested is that a DHCP client could request or receive multiple URIs. Each URI could have different policy attributed to it. The specific _how_ I think is left to the reader.
> What they were saying at the time is they felt they had enough Option
> numbers available for each URI purpose. I read below that you are
> suggesting at least 2 different URI purposes
> - 1 that has unrestricted access
> - 1 that provides access to within 50km
>
> DHC WG will - if they haven't changed their collective minds - will
> say these two are 2 different DHCP Option codes.
I don't think that this is the case - these were just examples. Probably more pertinent would be my discussion - say you divide your friends list into several groups: family, poker buddies, cricket team, work colleagues, mistresses (to list one possible taxonomy). If you wish to apply different policy to each, then you need a different URI for each group. That's a lot more than two, and certainly a poor use of the limited option code space.
One realization in DHCP has the server provide a limited number of URIs when requested. (Repeated sub-options might work with DHCP lbyr, but don't let the specifics get in the way of the example.) Another choice would be to have the client make several requests, with each request getting a different response.
Each URI is then allocated a policy by the client. In this proposal, each location URI has a matching policy URI. The client updates the policy for the location URI by changing the document at the policy URI.
So, the client designates a location URI as being for colleagues. Before handing that URI out, they create an appropriate policy at the matching policy URI.
--Martin
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
