Subject: RE: [GEOPRIV] draft-winterbottom-location-uri-01

From: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:05:09 -0500

I believe the document name is confusing.  Location by reference doesn't
appear to be the objective of the proposal, but more of location conveyance
using indirection.  Since one might address a target via a SIP:URI, hence
requesting LI from the target directly could also be termed "location by
reference".   The resolution of the reference in either case would then be
location-by-value.

General Questions:

(1) Assuming this is implemented as described (by the L2/L3 provider),
please explain what happens when a target changes L2/L3 providers in a short
period of time.  For example: I connect my 802.11 client at Starbucks and
advise various LRs of the Starbucks operated LS, then I decide to walk down
the street and join the Borders 802.11 network, I would then have to revisit
all the LRs to advise them of the Borders LS?  This seems inefficient when
compared to the target passing location-by-value directly.   If the LR
contacts the target directly, the LR would get the correct data vs.
contacting the Starbucks LS, initiating a Starbucks LG to only find the
client is missing.

Questions related to specific cited sections:

Section(s) 3., 3.1, and 3.2

(2) Why are these same attributes not available when the LR requests LI from
the target directly?

Section 4

(3) Please explain why the LR has more control over when location is
generated when requesting LI from the LS verses requesting LI from the
target directly.

Section 5.2

(4) Please explain the assertion that the LG must ensure that it provides
new LI to the target every time it moves.  Can't the target request new LI
from the LG when it deems necessary?

Section 5.3

(5) Please explain why LI is more current when the LR requests it from the
LS verses requesting it from the target.  Both LS and target would be
capable of requesting LI from the LG, so why is it asserted that LS is more
capable of this request than the target?

Section 6.1

(6) This substantiation applies not in the Internet, but a regulated model
where the number of providers is limited.  Since any quantity of L2/L3
Internet access providers can exist in any given jurisdiction, quantity of
trust relationships is unknown.

Thanks,

-Marc Linsner-

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