Subject: [Geopriv] review comments on draft-thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery-00.txt

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:23:27 -0400

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thomson-geopriv-lis- 
discovery-00.txt

Overall, I like this draft very much, and favor its adoption by this  
working group.  I appreciate James and Martin taking the time to  
separate out the LIS discovery mechanisms from their candidate  
proposal, HELD.  One of the issues I think this working group has is  
that many people feel that to accept HELD or RELO or etc, they have  
to take the bad with the good.  This draft separates the issue of LIS  
discovery so that this good idea of HELD may be applied to other  
protocols.  Such ideas enable compromise and progression of good ideas.

My comments:

1) The term LIS needs to be defined in the terminology section,  
especially since there is a reference to RFC 3693 where the terms LS  
and Target are defined.  This might also help clarify the scope of  
the work and reduce some of the heartburn the security folks my have.

2) The introduction may want to expand upon #1 a little more by  
specifying the scope of the work to the application of L7-LCP enabled  
LIS environments.  In other words, if you are already getting your LI  
from DHCP or LLDP-MED, this is not applicable.

3) Remove the registration for HELD to make this totally protocol  
neutral.  Instead, note that whatever protocols do use this must  
create an IANA registration for U-NAPTR.

4) Specify the order of the discovery methods.  Predictability is a  
good thing.  I suggest this order: 1)DHCP, 2) U-NAPTR via configured  
domain (either static or dynamic), and 3) U-NAPTR via reverse IP.   
That's just a strawman proposal, but I think the methods do need to  
be ordered.

5) Create an appendix with examples.  Examples always help.

6) There needs to be some text around how a client would query its  
location over DHCP vs. querying the LIS location over DHCP.  In other  
words, explain how a client uses both.  See #2.

7) Pat yourselves on the back for a job well done.

-andy

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

---

From: "Carl Reed OGC Account" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:48:06 -0600

I agree with Andy's suggestion that LIS needs to be properly defined. LIS is 
an acronym that has been used in the cadastral and GIS communities for 
decades. Stands for Land Information System.

Cheers

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Newton" <[email-masked]>
To: "GEOPRIV WG" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 5:23 AM
Subject: [Geopriv] review comments 
ondraft-thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery-00.txt

> working group.  I appreciate James and Martin taking the time to  separate 
> out the LIS discovery mechanisms from their candidate  proposal, HELD. 
> One of the issues I think this working group has is  that many people feel 
> that to accept HELD or RELO or etc, they have  to take the bad with the 
> good.  This draft separates the issue of LIS  discovery so that this good 
> idea of HELD may be applied to other  protocols.  Such ideas enable 
> compromise and progression of good ideas.
>
> My comments:
>
> especially since there is a reference to RFC 3693 where the terms LS  and 
> Target are defined.  This might also help clarify the scope of  the work 
> and reduce some of the heartburn the security folks my have.
>
> specifying the scope of the work to the application of L7-LCP enabled  LIS 
> environments.  In other words, if you are already getting your LI  from 
> DHCP or LLDP-MED, this is not applicable.
>
> neutral.  Instead, note that whatever protocols do use this must  create 
> an IANA registration for U-NAPTR.
>
> 4) Specify the order of the discovery methods.  Predictability is a  good 
> thing.  I suggest this order: 1)DHCP, 2) U-NAPTR via configured  domain 
> (either static or dynamic), and 3) U-NAPTR via reverse IP.   That's just a 
> strawman proposal, but I think the methods do need to  be ordered.
>

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:41:19 -0500

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the comments. Just on point 4 below.
If do a U-NAPTR lookup on the provisioned or static domain, then you may
well have to go to the point of actually requesting a location from the
LIS before you are able to determine that you have used the wrong
domain. And this detection mechanism is based on the LIS saying "oi, I
can't find you".

As long as that is acceptable, then I think the order you suggest can be
applied.

If the reverse DNS is done prior to the U-NAPTR, then you at least know
or can have a greater degree of comfort that you are going to asking for
the local LIS.

Cheers
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, 16 March 2007 10:23 PM
> To: GEOPRIV WG
ondraft-thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery-
> 00.txt

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