Subject: RE: [Geopriv] RE: [dhcwg] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-07.txt

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:45:34 -0600

> 
> This does mean that a client has to make a possibly unpleasant choice
> between not sending the information, and thus possibly making it
> harder be located in an emergency or possibly having poorer service
> in some other area, and sending it with no redistribution/retention
> limits.

[AJW] I simply don't understand this statement. If the end-point has its
location, how is providing that location to a DHCP server going to
assist with emergency call routing?

My personal opinion is that allowing the transfer of location from the
client to the server in this manner is a significant stretch of the
intentions laid out in RFC-3694 and quite far reaching application and
security implications. 

Cheers
James

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:02:47 -0500

> assist with emergency call routing?

It's a bit of a stretch, but the logic would be something like:

- End point knows location, but client application doesn't know how to 
retrieve or use it (this would include all current IP telephony soft 
clients, for example);

- in an enterprise environment, the proxy server gets to ask the DHCP 
server for location information (and uses it for emergency call routing).

I agree that this is not a deployment scenario we should make the 
preferred outcome.

The more likely case is that this is used for network management ("find 
the misbehaving PC or phone").

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:23:26 -0800

>  assist with emergency call routing?

I think you're right; I mentioned it because (IIRC) one of the 
arguments made here for using SHOULD NOT instead of MUST NOT for 
client->server was emergency services.

But the issue is the same either way: should the client have to 
choose between "ravish me" and a lower level of service?
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
I employ no person who smokes.      --- Thomas Edison
[Handwritten note by Edison to Henry Ford, April 26, 1914