I am wonder who wants to deploy it.
On 30.07.2010 15:13, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> If the DHCP server is providing the same information to everybody --
> effectively providing a value by reference -- then there's no reason
> to have a policy URI. You just wouldn't do it.
>
> Adding a policy URI does introduce another attack vector. However, if
> the client doesn't trust the local network to be secure enough, he can
> always irrevocably kill the URI by sending a DELETE request.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:50 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> I have my doubts that this mechanism gets used for the DHCP based
>> solution.
>>
>> DHCP does not provide confidentiality protection as a built-in
>> feature. As Marc mentioned in response to issue#23 (see
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/23) I raised every
>> target would be given the exact same location information on a shared
>> medium. So, this is draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis.
>>
>> Note: The draft that was forwarded to the IESG does not point out
>> this important security aspect, I believe.
>>
>> If you don't make the same assumption for the DHCP-URI draft then you
>> suddenly allow others to modify your policies. This would be really bad.
>>
>> If you make the assumption that everyone on a shared medium gets the
>> same pointer to location and also pointer to policy then you still
>> allow others to modify the policy but there is at least no privacy
>> harm with revealing location but rather denial of service.
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>> On 30.07.2010 14:23, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>>> Simplicity: This document does everything that HELD-Context does
>>> (except for <snapshot>), without requiring any new XML. (And
>>> <snapshot> should be a policy extension, anyway.)
>>>
>>> Generality: This document is not specific to HELD, so that, e.g., it
>>> can be used with DHCP.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:07 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not use the existing HELD Context document?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30.07.2010 14:05, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>>>>> The only concern raised in the meeting with regard to
>>>>> draft-barnes-geopriv-policy-uri was when Hannes noted that the
>>>>> exchange could be made more efficient (in the HELD context)
>>>>> overlaying the policy interactions on a HELD transaction. For
>>>>> example, the client could provide policy data in a
>>>>> <locationRequest> object, and the server could specify policy it
>>>>> intends to use in the <locationResponse>. I think we should not
>>>>> do this.
>>>>
>>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
