RE: [GeoPriv]: Review comments on HELDdraft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-03
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [GeoPriv]: Review comments on HELDdraft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-03



Mary,
I agree with your replies to Roger's comments. You asked for feedback on
the following:
--------- snipped text of Roger's comment C7 and Mary's response ------
C7. Section 3, pp1., s4.  Change wording. 
Change from: 
"The LIS exists because not all Devices are capable of
   determining LI, and because, even if a device is able to determine
   its own LI, it may be more efficient with assistance." 
Change to: 
"The LIS exists because not all Devices are capable of
   determining LI, and because, even if a device is able to determine
   its own LI, it may be more efficient with assistance, and finally,
because it may be desired that external requests for a target location
be cached in a LIS in order to alleviate load from the target device."

Reason: The reason given as to why a LIS exists needs to be expanded to
cover the idea of "storing location". 

[MB] I would like more WG feedback on this.  By definition, the LIS
caches location information, but it was not my understanding that
alleviating load on the target was a motivation.  [/MB] 
--------------end snipped text-------------------------------

In the current HELD draft, we only have the source IP address as the
identifier. Without extensions to support other IDs, the only way that
the LIS could be used to alleviate load from the target device, is for
the device to give out the (unsecured) location URI. Since we haven't
defined a way for the LIS to be populated with security rules for who
can dereference location, I think it would be a bad idea for us to
encourage this use, or claim that it is desirable in some way.
Therefore, I don't agree with adding this function to the description.

To me, alleviating load from the target is more what I would expect from
a Presence Server. There's nothing that would stop a server that has LIS
functionality on it, from also being a SIP Presence server. Within the
definition of Presence Server, we know how to do security and all sorts
of URIs, including long-lasting ones, like SIP user IDs or IMS PUIDs.
Let's not change the definition of LIS to somehow also incorporate the
definition of a presence server.
Barbara 

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA623




_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv




Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.