Re: [Ecrit] comments on LoST

[Andrew Newton <andy at hxr.us>]

On Jul 11, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> Major:
>
> * LoST doesn't allow for any variability in the format of location  
> information. I wonder if it makes sense to include an indication of  
> the format of the location object, and to allow rejection if the  
> format is not supported. Probably you'd need a baseline for  
> interoperability.

Rejection?  Stating such a thing may be useful during validation, but  
rejection is not a use case.

> * for dialstrings, suggest perhaps the KPML syntax for digit maps

Aren't returned dialstrings to be stuck into tel or sip URIs?  If so,  
would KPML be compatible?

> * It'd be nice to be able, in a single lost query, ask for multiple  
> services for the same location

Given the conversation on multiple locations, I'd prefer we hold off  
on this.  It is nice to have, but keeping complexity down is also a  
nice to have.

> * Security aspects are still really weak. You need to specify basic  
> proceudres as part of the basic client and server processing.  
> Beyond mutual tls I think we want a standard server side  
> authentication mechanism as well, with no client authentication

Being able to have that would be nice, but server side authentication  
will not work world wide.  I suppose it would depend on the TLS  
library, but some would require a requery with different options if  
the first query failed due to bad authentication.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit