Subject: [Geopriv] Comments on L7 LCP PS

From: "Arolick, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:33:51 -0500

Some late comments on the Layer 7 LCP Problem Statement document. Sorry
that I did not get these in sooner.

General Observation - Rather than a full investigation of the problem of
location configuration, the document, as stated in the second sentence
of the abstract and in the introduction, immediately narrows the focus
to issues related to location acquisition between an end host and a LIS.
As evidenced by the discussion on this list, this does not appear to
encompass the full problem statement for location configuration. It
would be beneficial for a later version of this document to investigate
the location acquisition scenarios that have been raised that have
suggested the need for proxy to LIS and LIS to LIS communication,
similarly to how issues related to identifiers and VPN have been
discussed, for example. The common thread is that other entities beyond
the end host need to communicate with the LIS, so it seems to be within
scope of the problem statement for an LCP.   

Section 3 - Note that the list provides examples of network types within
scope. There could be others.

Section 3.1 - Some additional text to note that DSL is being presented
as an example of a fixed wired network would be helpful.

Separate the description of DSL from the second part of the section that
talks about current CPE deployments and includes cable modem.

Section 4 - Discovery is certainly part of the location configuration
problem, but not necessarily related to the specification of an LCP, as
evidenced by the suggested discovery mechanisms. Perhaps it should
eventually be covered separately. However, as part of this document,
should it somehow be reflected in the requirements?

Section 5 - Cited DSL Forum docs should be in references section

Section 6.3 - need to update cross reference to section X.2

Section 7 - maybe label lines in Figure 4 as A, B, C instead of 1 - 3 to
avoid confusion with the numbered steps that follow

Step 4 below the figure should perhaps be two separate steps.

Section 8.2.1 - 3rd paragraph after numbered items - sentence that
begins "one such verifiable identifier" seems to list several
identifiers so maybe it should be reworded.

Section 9 - need some introductory text to clarify the intention of this
section. The "requirements" listed appear to be considerations for the
design of a LCP, not a comprehensive list of actual requirements 

For example, L7-4 is an assumption about business relationships.  By the
way, isn't this assumption an attempt to address the same scenario that
could be addressed by LIS to LIS communication?

The need for discovery, the required properties of an identifier, and
requirements for l-by-r are identified elsewhere in the document.
Depending on the actual purpose of this section, these should probably
be reflected here as requirements.

As others have noted, NENA has produced requirements that should also be
considered.

Thanks

Eric

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