Re: [Geopriv] Confused about draft-polk-geopriv-pidf-lo-4-agps-00.txt

["Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig at nsn.com>]

James, 

have you been missing years of discussions around L7 LCPs? Henning even
had a proposal to use SIP, see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-geopriv-locationref-00

Based on the decisions in Prague the group decided to go for HELD and
there was no need seen to create yet another LCP. Adding yet another
protocol does not make deployment a lot simpler...

I find it amusing that you suddenly switch to a non DHCP based solution
(while some of your co-workers even this week fight for DHCP) :-)

Ciao
Hannes

PS: You write "poses zero new security or privacy concerns relative to
Conveyance." 

Let me give you something to think about: When you change one protocol
name against another one then do you think that the fundamental privacy
& security aspects are suddenly different? 

 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk at cisco.com] 
>Sent: 17 July, 2008 21:48
>To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); geopriv at ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Confused about 
>draft-polk-geopriv-pidf-lo-4-agps-00.txt
>
>At 09:00 AM 7/17/2008, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
>>I just ran into
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-geopriv-pidf-lo
>-4-agps-0
>>0 .txt and got the impression that this document assumes some sort of 
>>L7LCP based on SIP.
>
>glad you found it
>
>
>>Maybe I am completely off base here but does someone attempt 
>to work on 
>>another L7 LCP beyond HELD?
>
>In LCPs, both ends (the server and the client) know where the 
>client is at the end of the transaction. This is true for each 
>LCP to date.
>
>draft-polk-geopriv-pidf-lo-4-agps-00.txt provides the ability 
>of one side to get assistance data from the other in 
>determining where the endpoint is.
>
>BTW -- draft-polk-geopriv-pidf-lo-triangulation-00 does the 
>same thing, but only the LS (as a LIS) does location determination.
>
>SIP is just used here as a transport, because it alone has the 
>ability to have persistent (periodic and triggered state information
>transfer) connections.
>
>Only 2 of the 14 SIP Methods are to be used in this proposal 
>(SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY). There is nothing about voice or video 
>or instant messaging in this proposal, so relatively, this is 
>a lite implementation of SIP.
>
>So, if this is how you define an LCP, then yes, SIP is being 
>proposed as a new one, within this limited usage. If you do 
>not define this as an LCP, then no, SIP is not being proposed 
>as a new one.
>
>Either way you define this (as an LCP or not), HTTP lacks the 
>ability to have or create persistent connections, which at 
>least one other SDO (WiMAX) requires for both triangulation 
>and A-GPS data transfers.  SIP has this ability - specified in 
>2002 in RFC 3265, and this poses zero new security or privacy 
>concerns relative to Conveyance.
>
>James
>
>
>>Ciao
>>Hannes
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Geopriv mailing list
>>Geopriv at ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv