Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Phone BCP: Multiple Location

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:52:13 -0400

Hey Other James,
I agree that there needs to be intelligence all over the place to try to get the best location to a device in the first place. 
In this thread, I'm really just focussing on stating that I've created recommended behavior for generic end devices, just in case they do get multiple locations. It could happen, and they need to have logic to handle it. In my experience, a lack of recommendations for handling things that shouldn't happen means that it'll happen more than we like, and everyone will handle it differently, creating unpredictability. 
It's no big deal. I'm not even asking for it in phonebcp. I'm just mentioning that I've written such recommendations, and if others think phonebcp should have them, I'll be happy to provide them. I think this thread started when Hannes mentioned we didn't have such rules and asked if they might be needed. 
Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: James M. Polk <[email-masked]>
To: Stark, Barbara; Winterbottom, James <[email-masked]>; Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thu Apr 03 01:30:11 2008
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Phone BCP: Multiple Location

Barbara

Isn't this a rulemaker decision (i.e., a policy configured in the 
LG/LS as to which to include or merge)?

I think this should be the case.

For example, AT&T (yeah, I'm picking on your company for no 
particular reason) might have a policy to trust any LLDP-MED LCI over 
DHCP LCI.  In this case an AT&T device constructs the PIDF-LO from 
LLDP-MED if it used that LCP.

Conversely, Sprint might have a policy stating that if there is a 
local GPS chip measuring location for the device, construct the 
PIDF-LO from that LI over anything else received.

I think this is domain specific, based on the policy of the 
significant rulemaker (which should have some say so from the user, 
but maybe not in this case - because Joe Citizen doesn't know the 
difference or preference of the underlying network)...

(the other) James

At 07:14 AM 4/2/2008, Stark, Barbara wrote:

>--- snip -----------
>PIDF-LO profile doesn't say how you determined which of these locations
>from different sources is best, and I don't think it can.
>Is it this latter piece of information you are seeking?
>--- end snip -------
>
>Yes. But in the form of a default recommendation that can be used in the
>absence of any "real" knowledge.
>Barbara
>
>*****
>
>The information transmitted is intended only for the person or 
>entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, 
>proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, 
>dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance 
>upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended 
>recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please 
>contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA623
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA625

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit