Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG review of draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-05

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 17:30:12 -0600

That works for me... I misread your earlier suggestion.  If you feel that the cost of the additional option code, and the potential for an orphaned fingerprint URI is acceptable in trade for the (much greater) simplicity, I can handle that.  

Referring to previous emails, your analysis is sound - no further reading of GEOPRIV documents should be necessary.

An unauthenticated URI isn't quite the right way to put it, but it's close enough - however, just because the DHCP server isn't providing the fingerprint, doesn't mean that the client shouldn't authenticate the server that it contacts.  RFC 2818 provides a good mechanism for that.

You are correct in assuming that this can be static data.  Manual generation of the hash is likely, at least initially.  A "nice" implementation might be able to take certificate files and hash functions as inputs, but that's not absolutely necessary.

As for size, that's a cost that will have to be borne.  Under usual circumstances I expect that we'll see a URI in the order of 50 bytes maximum: https://lis.some.network.example:5081/locationserver is pretty long.  A sha-1 hash will take (including length and hash type of 5 bytes) a total of 27 bytes.

Cheers,
Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, 31 January 2009 7:55 AM
> To: Ted Lemon
> Cc: Thomson, Martin; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG review of draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-
> 05
> 
> Hi Ted:
> 
> Not an issue ... The discussion is evolving and some of my earlier
> opinions have changed as I learn more about this. Originally I had
> suggested suboptions, but as the potential size of the suboptions and
> the semantics of their use has become clear, I'm no longer in favor of
> that -- I instead think separate options are more appropriate.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 2:27 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz)
> Cc: Thomson, Martin; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG review of
> draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-05
> 
> On Jan 30, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> >> So using two options *also* requires additional code.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand this. On the client, yes, but there is
> > additional code required anyway to decode this option (or options)
> > regardless?
> 
> Damien pointed out to me privately that I may have been responding to
> a proposal that you had not made.   I had understood you to be talking
> about expressing each datum as a separate suboption, when in fact
> Damien said (and it seems you agree) that you were talking about top-
> level options.   So my observations about what you said don't really
> apply.
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg