Subject: [Geopriv] review comments on draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-01.txt

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:08:33 -0400

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held- 
identity-extensions-01.txt

Overall, this draft seems to address its goal, which appears to be to  
make HELD compliant with the identifier list in draft-ietf-geopriv-l7- 
lcp-ps-00.txt.  Section 4 sports a very impressive list of  
identifiers, and section 6 sports a very impressive list of regular  
expressions to match.  This identifier list seems to be a superset of  
that mentioned in draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00.txt.  Given the  
complex nature of the systems and protocols involved, how likely is  
it that all of these identifier types will be used?  Is it possible  
that some may be dropped?  And if they cannot be dropped, can we tie  
their need to a stated requirement?

-andy

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

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:46:01 -0500

Hi Andy,

To be clear the schema for this draft has been in basic existence since
the end of 2005, and many of the identifiers have come from looking at
specific network deployment problems. The identifier list is long
indeed, and certainly some are in there for just-in-case. If there are
specific identifiers that you would like me to clarify or provide a
scenario for I would be happy to do so. I have provided quite a few
examples in a number non-IETF texts over which I have been able to
provide a use-case for almost all of these identifiers.

I agree that the regular expressions are long, however they enforce that
specific address types are indeed valid, something that I think is
important. If we as a group or the IETF as a whole wanted to produce a
separate schema that enforced some of these constraints then we would be
happy to import it. For example I see quite a bit of use in a generic
schema that defines IPv4 and IPv6 address and enforces through
validation that the values provided are indeed valid addresses.

Cheers
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2007 1:09 PM
> To: GEOPRIV WG
> Subject: [Geopriv] review comments ondraft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:02:38 -0400

> provide a use-case for almost all of these identifiers.

I have no problem with any of those identifiers.  But if you feel  
they are necessary, shouldn't they be in the requirements document?   
Otherwise, you are putting items into a protocol that are not necessary.

> validation that the values provided are indeed valid addresses.

I wasn't being facetious when I said it was impressive.  That work is  
good.

-andy