RE: LLDP-MED and Phone BCP (Re: [Ecrit] New phonebcpdraft wassubmitted)

[Ted Hardie <hardie at qualcomm.com>]

At 4:09 PM +0200 7/12/06, Stastny Richard wrote:
> >You need a list, where one end implements ALL and the other end implements "at least one of" to get interoperability.  There is no >other way.
> 
>Fully agree. A device needs to implement ALL possible mechanisms, there is no other way, since you never know where a
>device is attached to. Period
> 
>Richard
>

My agreement with this depends a lot on what "possible" means.  If someone defines a pppoe mechanisms, implementing it in a phone that doesn't support ethernet or pppoe is  not useful.  If you define that as "not a possible mechanism for that phone", then we're probably okay.  But that sounds to me closer to what Barbara is saying than what Brian has said.

I also believe we need to see the text Brian mentioned in the room yesterday for self-configuration.  For some devices, self-configuration will be more accurate than the network-provided location received by many of these methods.  But putting that into the list of mechanisms has some pretty interesting results.

Last, the l7 question has two issues.  First, if you have IP connectivity, will you be able to
reach an l7 server?  The answer to that had better be yes, since reaching one and reaching a sip service have pretty similar properties.   The other question is: will the l7 server be able to identify 1) you and 2) where you.  I take it that Brian's primary concern is that it  will not be possible to identify a client to the l7 server in ways  that will work reliably in all environments.  Until we get a little deeper I can't say, but I do have to question whether the effort to get to that point (so that there is single fallback mechanism) is really worse than every client implementing everything, where everything is a potentially growing list.

				Ted

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