Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Geopriv L7 LCP Location-Per-Value

From: "Abbott, Nadine B" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:50:09 -0400

Hi, Hannes,

I assume you are talking about Location-by-Value (and not something else
entirely that I've missed)? 

I certainly HOPE so. The need for a L7 protocol to provide location
information was communicated to this working group about 1 1/2 years
ago.

We've had one proposal on the table for at least that long, and lately,
others.
I hope we can come to a consensus that one of these meets the Geopriv
LCP requirements.

Since the community of access providers that identified this need have
also invested effort considering how they might implement the
longest-running contender, HELD, I myself would favor concentrating on
working out any issues that remain as obstacles to adopting it as an RFC
standard. 

Thanks,
Nadine   

-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:52 AM
To: GEOPRIV
Subject: [Geopriv] Geopriv L7 LCP Location-Per-Value

Hi all,

as some of you might have noticed we got a bit stuck with the
location-by-reference discussion.

Do people agree that we want to work on a Geopriv L7 LCP solution for
transport of Location-Per-Value?

Ciao
Hannes

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

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

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:09:59 -0400

HI Nadine,

> entirely that I've missed)? 

Yes. Location-per-value / Location-by-Value (all the same)

> information was communicated to this working group about 1 1/2 years

You comment is taken. I just want to make sure that we move forward with 
our discussion.

> I hope we can come to a consensus that one of these meets the Geopriv

I hope so too.

> working out any issues that remain as obstacles to adopting it as an RFC
Given the latest discussion I cannot say that we are making good progress.

Ciao
Hanne

---

From: "Dawson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:03:57 -0500

Hi Hannes,

Can you clarify your question?

I think there is consensus that there should be a protocol that provides
location-by-value. Did you mean inclusive with, or to the exclusion of,
location-by-reference?

Cheers,
Martin

> Sent: Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:10 AM
> To: Abbott, Nadine B
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Geopriv L7 LCP Location-Per-Value
> 
> HI Nadine,
> 
> 

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

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:10:43 -0400

Hi Martin,

I tried to start from a common ground again before we add different pieces.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:13:23 -0400

If I might jump in here, my opinion is that one way to make progress on L7
is to avoid contentious issues.  So, we could try dealing solely with an L7
LbyV protocol, leaving the LbyR stuff behind for the moment.

Similarly, we could make progress on a protocol with an abstract identifier,
simultaneously looking into the security issues of using an IP address as
one possible concrete identifier.

Brian

> From: Dawson, Martin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:04 PM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig; Abbott, Nadine B
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Geopriv L7 LCP Location-Per-Value
> 
> Hi Hannes,
>

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:45:39 -0400

Brian has good points here.

And while looking into issues with the IP address identifier, it would 
help if the Chairs or ADs got confirmation or denial of the speculation 
(from Dallas ?) that the IESG would reject this.

John

---

From: "Dawson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:28:37 -0500

I'd actually find that quite a contentious step...

> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 September 2006 4:13 AM
> To: Dawson, Martin; 'Hannes Tschofenig'; 'Abbott, Nadine B'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> is to avoid contentious issues.  So, we could try dealing solely with
an
> L7
> > > > I assume you are talking about Location-by-Value (and not
something
> > else
> > > You comment is taken. I just want to make sure that we move
forward
> > with
> > > > Since the community of access providers that identified this
need
> > have
> > > > longest-running contender, HELD, I myself would favor
concentrating
> > on
> > > > working out any issues that remain as obstacles to adopting it
as an
> > RFC
> > > > Do people agree that we want to work on a Geopriv L7 LCP
solution
> > for
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----------------------

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:09:36 -0400

On Sep 19, 2006, at 2:45 PM, John Schnizlein wrote:

> And while looking into issues with the IP address identifier, it  
> would help if the Chairs or ADs got confirmation or denial of the  
> speculation (from Dallas ?) that the IESG would reject this.

I think we are owed an applicability statement first.

-andy