RE: [Geopriv] coming to terms on location by reference

This piece of misinformation about i2 continues to be promulgated. The
i2 *working group* was tasked with defining a solution for fixed
subscriber access and was encouraged to find a solution supporting
wireless access as well. The i2 *architecture* was based off the
cellular mobile interfaces and *most definitely* supports mobile
devices. That's one of the main reasons that the V3 interface exists.

As far as I know it is primarily the detractors of location by reference
who continue to raise the "business model benefit" and it's done so as
some kind of anti-benefit statement presumably to discredit the entire
concept by association. Objections to this particular use
location-by-reference are apparently based on an ideological criterion
that has no place in the engineering of a protocol that provides useful
functions to those that want to implement them.

I cited a quite extensive list of the benefits location-by-reference
previously that goes beyond the two you have gleaned. Would you like
them re-listed?

Cheers,
Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 14 September 2006 2:18 AM
> To: 'Andrew Newton'; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] coming to terms on location by reference
>
> Andy,
>
> One thing I continue to look for when L by R solutions are discussed
is
> the
> underlying requirements. In other words, what problem is L by R
solving
> that can't be solved by existing mechanisms.
>
> 1) The only requirement that I've been able to glean from the multiple
> years
> of this discussion is the business requirement of not letting the
target
> know the location. Notwithstanding personal opinion on this, this
> requirement obviously cannot be accomplished by current mechanisms.
>
> 2) Any attempt to cite bandwidth efficiency as a requirement doesn't
> normally motivate Internet engineers, lack of bandwidth isn't normally
> associated with Internet devices.
>
> 3) The citation of the NENA i2 architecture failing for wireless
devices
> without a L by R mechanism needs more clarification.
> a) The i2 specification is targeted at residential WIRELINE
> replacement by VoIP devices normally not thought of as mobile.
> b) The i2 architecture defines a 'gateway' between the VoIP
world
> and the legacy.
> c) I see no reason why any mechanism to support wireless
location
> updates won't work for i2 (no need for a specific mechanism).
>
> -Marc-
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@hxr.us]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:18 AM
> > To: geopriv@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Geopriv] coming to terms on location by reference
> >
> >
> > As John Schnizlein has noted in a message
> > (http://www.ecotroph.net/~anewton/hypermail/geopriv/0607/2717.
> > html), we have not truly come to consensus on location by
> > reference within this working group. The GEOPRIV working
> > group has been presented with many individual submissions for
> > both architectural considerations and concrete solutions.
> > Additionally, this working group has discussed
> > location-by-reference with regard to its component uses in
> > location configuration protocols, location dereference
> > protocols, and location conveyance protocols. As a working
> > group, we are much further along in our understanding of
> > location-by-reference than we were just 1 year ago. And as it
> > stands, there are many who feel it is valuable, many who feel
> > it is not, and many who have not given their opinions. But
> > it is now time for us to determine how we should move forward
> > on location-by-reference, either accepting it as a whole,
> > accepting it in limited form, or rejecting it entirely.
> >
> > To that end, I offer the following inexhaustive list of
> > observations on this
> > topic:
> >
> > 1) Location-by-reference offers better efficiency where
> > location of a target is not determined by the target and when
> > the target wishes to convey its location. It is more
> > efficient because the target does not have to first retrieve
> > the location in order to convey it.
> >
> > 2) Location measurement and determination (sighting) of a
> > target by another element is of limited scope as
> > self-determination methods such as GPS may offer greater accuracy.
> >
> > 3) Authentication of the dereferencer may have unintended
> > consequences. For example, a referent host may require
> > authentication that could cause the failure of emergency call
> > routing. Therefore, location-by-reference may not
> > appropriate or could even be harmful for certain use cases.
> >
> > To further this discussion so that we may come to resolution
> > on this topic, I welcome comments regarding the above as well
> > as further observations.
> >
> > -andy
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > Geopriv@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:40:36 -0500