Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Revised draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:30:30 -0400

I really hadn't intended this to turn into a long-running thread.  I
raised the issue because the new text added to draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-
civil to the -04 draft (which the dhc WG reviewed) in the -06 draft
represents a significant change in the protocol specified in the draft
and a significant divergence from the DHCP design principles and
practice.   Despite this change to the specification in the -06 draft,
the dhc WG was not asked to review and comment on the changes.  So, I
simply asked that the WG be given an opportunity to review the changes.

I'm surprised that we've gotten pushback from the IESG about this review
issue, which has come about because of an oversight in the specification
review process.  There is a problem with the specification, in that it
overconstrains, without justification and guidance to the implementor
and the system administrator, the use of a DHCP option.  One key
strength of the Internet protocols is that existing mechanisms are
regularly reused for new applications.  With the excessive constraint on
the use of the Civic Location Option that was added to draft-ietf-
geopriv-dhcp-civil-06, that option can't be reused for new applications
in the future.

With review of the final revision of the document by the dhc WG, taking
advantage of the WG's experience with DHCP and the ways in which other
options have been used in novel ways, this overconstraint could have
been identified earlier.  It is inappropriate for the IESG to try to
push the specification through without that review, no matter where the
document is in the review process.

- Ralph

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:17:55 -0500

At 05:13 AM 7/29/2005 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:

>On Jul 28, 2005, at 5:21 PM, John Schnizlein wrote:
>>There is no privacy issue to worry about when a host that has
>>attached to an ethernet jack includes its location in the DHCP
>>message that is part of its initial configuration.
>
>Why isn't there?  If my location-aware device knows my location and
>it is sending that information to anybody else, then I should be able
>to attach my privacy preferences to it.  If I'm sending that to the
>DHCP server, I should have the right to also say that it should not
>pass on that information.

Do you believe your device will make your privacy rules configurable to/by 
you whenever you divulge your location (whether asked for, or pushed)?

If so, you cannot use DHCP, because it has no privacy capability.

If some device doesn't have privacy concerns (perhaps because there isn't a 
user for that device), it can use DHCP for this transaction, especially 
when "location" will be sent in cleartext by design.

cheers,
James

                                 *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.