Subject: RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-03

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:24:20 -0600

Hi Cullen,

Thanks for your comments.  A few responses and question (for the WG)
embedded below [MB].

Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:39 PM
To: GEOPRIV
Subject: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-03

Few trivial nits in document clarity ...

I found
   The HELD protocol uses the IP address of the Device as an identifier
    in determining the location of the device.
somewhat misleading and might suggest rewording. Perhaps something like
   The LIS uses the source IP address of the request sent from the
Device as an identifier
    in determining the location of the device.
[MB] Sounds good.

In section 4.1.1. do we need to say anything about devices that move
after the VPN is up? I don't care, just an idea.
[MB] I don't have an opinion either.  Do other people have views?

In section 6.1, it was not clear to me until I looked at the schema that
this could be either the number value or the enumerated type.  
For the numeric value, just having it be an integer in mili seconds
might make some people happier than using floating point.
[MB] Good point.  I'll add the appropriate text to 6.1 and change the
type to "nonNegativeInteger" unless someone sees a reason for a decimal
value. [/MB]

Cullen <with my individual contributor hat on>

_______________________________________________
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: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:37:46 -0500

If a device is mobile, and is connected via a non-bypassable VPN, then it
better use a reference obtained before the VPN comes up.

I have no idea how you ensure that.

Brian

> From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:24 PM
> To: Cullen Jennings; GEOPRIV
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-03
> 
> Hi Cullen,
>

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:02:05 -0600

This is not a HELD specific problem, and is equally applicable to DHCP.

> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 7:38 AM
> To: 'Mary Barnes'; 'Cullen Jennings'; 'GEOPRIV'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:36:30 -0500

It's true, and deserves some text in DHCP options if we open that up again.
I do think that given current realities, HELD is more likely to be used in
mobile environments that don't use MLP, but you are still correct.

Brian

> From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 7:02 PM
> To: Brian Rosen; Mary Barnes; Cullen Jennings; GEOPRIV

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:54:19 -0600

MLP isn't used by end-devices and I think never will be.

> Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 11:37 AM
> To: Winterbottom, James; 'Mary Barnes'; 'Cullen Jennings'; 'GEOPRIV'
> > > Subject: RE: [Geopriv]
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-03
> > >
> > > If a device is mobile, and is connected via a non-bypassable VPN,
then
> > it
> > > > Subject: RE: [Geopriv]
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-03
> > > > somewhat misleading and might suggest rewording. Perhaps
something
> > like
> > > > In section 6.1, it was not clear to me until I looked at the
schema
> > that
> > > > [MB] Good point.  I'll add the appropriate text to 6.1 and
change
> > the
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----------------------

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:02:27 -0500

I meant that IMS like systems would do proxy insertion and thus the issues
would not arise.  That would use MLP, right?

However, those same systems will need to support something for packet
services (think MSN Messenger on a raw packet service), and they will need
something also, and proxy insertion may not be practical there.

Brian

> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 7:54 PM

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:03:01 -0600

Perhaps the way forward is to suggest that for device that may be mobile
they should request both a location URI and a location value. That way
they always have a means to get to their location.

> Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 11:54 AM
> > > > > Thanks for your comments.  A few responses and question (for
the
> WG)
> > > > > Subject: [Geopriv]
> > > > > In section 4.1.1. do we need to say anything about devices
that
> move
> > > > > type to "nonNegativeInteger" unless someone sees a reason for
a
> > > decimal

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:03:28 -0600

Yup okay

> Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 12:02 PM
> > >
> > > It's true, and deserves some text in DHCP options if we open that
up
> > > again.
> > > >
> > > > This is not a HELD specific problem, and is equally applicable
to
> > DHCP.
the
> > > > > >    The LIS uses the source IP address of the request sent
from
that
> > > > > > type to "nonNegativeInteger" unless someone sees a reason
for a