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

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:49:29 -0800

At 9:12 AM -0500 11/21/05, Bernie Volz \(volz\) wrote:
>
>If you want to keep this information private, DON'T SEND IT via DHCP.
>Period. End of story! That's why clients shouldn't be sending this
>unless configured to.
>

This suggests that we might get past this by reversing Henning's original
proposal.  Do not make this a protocol error, but state in the document
that sending it from client to server is equivalent to sending a pidf-lo
with unlimited distribution and retention permitted.   Make it a SHOULD NOT,
obviously, but note that if you do send it that is the effect.

My reasoning here is that it is nigh impossible to determine what
administrative domain means in many deployments, and the agreement
to share among servers in a single administrative domains translates
into "you don't know where this is going".  If we state in the document
that it is SHOULD NOT unless the client is willing to set the ravish-me bits,
that is at least clear on what the consequences are.

How would that work for folks?
				Ted

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

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 14:11:29 -0800

>  How would that work for folks?

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.

I'd rather have the implied policy be do not distribute / do not 
retain, even though that raises the issue of what counts as 
distribution.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
History is strewn thick with evidence that truth is not hard to kill,
but a lie, well told, is immortal.
--Mark Twain

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:10:30 -0800

At 2:11 PM -0800 11/21/05, Randall Gellens wrote:
>
>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.
>
>I'd rather have the implied policy be do not distribute / do not retain, even though that raises the issue of what counts as distribution.
>

I don't think the "poorer service in some other area" is a hard choice to make; if
they are willing to trade unknown distribution for (unknown?) optimization, they can.

I think the use of this in an emergency case is a really weak possibility, for reasons
others have already stated.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:30:30 -0800

>  they are willing to trade unknown distribution for (unknown?) 

If the use cases for client-to-server transmission are very limited, 
then we can argue that they are so marginal that a client isn't 
making a hard choice at all.  But one could also argue that if that 
is true, why include it?

I agree that client-to-server transmission needs to have a very 
clearly stated default policy for the (as Ted so charmingly puts it) 
"ravish me" bits.  I also agree that making this default 
"do-not-retain , do-not-distribute" raises the issue of what counts 
as distributing.  But that problem exists anyway, doesn't it?
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Flappity, Floppity, Flip!
The Mouse on the Möbius Strip.
  The Strip revolved,
  The Mouse dissolved
In a chronodimensional skip.
--Frederick Winsor, "The Space Child's Mother Goose"
              [Simon & Schuster 1966], paperback

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:48:29 -0800

In thinking about this some more, I realize that since we are talking 
about a SHOULD NOT behavior, it is fine to say "and if you do this, 
realize that there is no privacy associated with it."
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
f u cn rd ths, itn tyg h myxbl cd.