Subject: [Geopriv] Issues with draft-peterson-geopriv-retransmission

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:57:36 -0600

I have more than a bit of an issue with the direction and conclusion 
of this new document, as it contradicts (at least) the (raw) notes 
from the Vancouver adhoc meeting on this subject.

Here is a quote from the raw notes taken by Keith Drage (SIP WG 
chair), who was running the adhoc, with regard to where the 
indication should go informing a intermediary server that it can view 
and/or use the Location Object):

"Pretty much deciding that it should go in an extension to the PIDF-LO.
This means we avoid the SIP scoping problem.

Rules in the PIDF-LO apply to everybody."

This agreement was reached during an extensive, and unusual 
discussion in which about a dozen of us eventually ended up in a 
circle around the microphone (because so many had an opinion at the 
same time), talking towards each other.  The discussion concluded 
when Ted and Jon agreed Jon would write the extension into PIDF-LO 
before the next meeting.

	draft-peterson-geopriv-retransmission-00

...is that ID, and it concludes that SIP should have a new 
Geolocation header parameter, instead of there being any extension to 
PIDF-LO.  There was zero discussion on either the SIP or Geopriv list 
about this effort during its writing. Therefore, unless there were 
back-channel private communications occurring, this ID is the 
creation of a solution by the authors without consideration of what 
the adhoc concluded in the previous meeting.

I have a problem with that procedurally, but not from a point of view 
that prevents anyone from submitting an ID (as anyone can, in fact, 
do this), but I take issue with an agreed upon ID topic drawing an 
opposite conclusion to what most of the interested parties of 2 WGs 
agreed to from a face-to-face meeting, without list discussion and 
agreement from either the SIP or Geopriv WG on this new direction as 
appropriate or valid in some way.

Further, it's not like this is a newly thought up topic, since this 
has been a contentious issue in SIP Location Conveyance at meetings 
in two WGs and in list discussion since before the Chicago meeting, 
to include several announced and well attended teleconferences on 
this specific topic.

Further still, it's not like the solution recommended in this ID has 
any security properties that make it a clearly superior solution that 
is not arguable now that it's articulated.  It has almost exactly as 
many flaws (zero integrity protection, visible to every SIP entity in 
a signaling path, zero prevention from a intermediary from view 
location information, etc) as the previous solution (the "recipient=" 
parameter) that the adhoc agreed was not preferable.

I also take issue with the adhoc being a SIP WG focused meeting, 
because SIP Location Conveyance is a SIP WG item, that was announced 
during the Geopriv session, yet this new ID is a Geopriv focused 
individual submission - meaning the SIP WG will not (likely) have a 
reasonable expectation of awareness this ID exists, much less perform 
any review prior to any call for this ID to become a Geopriv WG item, 
which necessitates the change of a SIP WG item.  It seems obvious to 
me the SIP WG is being left out of this even though 100% of the 
affect of this ID will be to a SIP WG document (only!) that is nearly 
ready for its 2nd (and final I hope) WGLC.

James

BTW - if the new solution suggested by this ID had any additional 
security properties (relative to the recently removed solution), my 
issues with it would be far less.

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