Subject: [Geopriv] Q about draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-05

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:27:20 -0500

Henning - I had occasion to review draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-05, to
determine if the options defined in that specification can be used to carry
civil location information from a host to a DHCP server as well as from the
server to a host.  As far as I can tell, draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-05
says nothing at all about transmitting the options.

So, I think the draft needs to be extended with a section on whether the
option can be sent from the server to the host, from the host to the server.
Might also be good to be specific about whether the client can request the
option and whether the server can send it unsolicited.

My personal preference would be to allow both the host and the server to
send the option to the other DHCP message partner.  I can imagine situations
in which a host has explicit knowledge of its location that it would want to
send to the server.

- Ralph

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:04:27 -0500

Ralph,

thanks for your comments. I think your observation applies to both this 
draft and RFC 3825 (on geo long/lat coordinates). I agree that both 
directions are useful, although the direction from host to server might 
necessitate the inclusion of the core privacy elements into the object 
(distribution, retention).

The draft assumes, probably without the appropriately clear wording, 
beyond the introductory "End systems that obtain location information 
via the mechanism" sentence, that this is server-to-host.

At this point, the draft is in IESG review (*), so any substantive 
changes presumably require IESG consent.

Henning

(*) 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=10671&rfc_flag=0