RE: [Geopriv]WGLCondraft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00(PIDF-LOdigitalsignatures)

From: Dawson, Martin ^lt;Martin.Dawson@andrew.com>
Date: Thu Feb 15 2007 - 17:53:36 EST

> What will be the operational differences for emergency response when > they receive: > > 1) A location object signed by a verifiable entity. > 2) A location object signed by an unverifiable entity. > 3) A location with no signature. This will be up to the emergency providers and corresponding jurisdiction regulators. Without the signature mechanism, they would have no basis on which to implement a policy. > It is accepted that emergency calling is a very small (<1%) application > for the use of location information. > Given the above, is the amount of work to perform digital signatures > worth the effort? Most certainly, yes. Cheers, Martin -----Original Message----- From: John Schnizlein [mailto:jschnizl@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, 16 February 2007 9:47 AM To: Brian Rosen Cc: geopriv@ietf.org; Thomson, Martin Subject: Re: [Geopriv]WGLCondraft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00(PIDF-LOdigitalsignatures) On Feb 15, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: > > John S/Marc: if you were starting today, what would you say? Starting today, because network infrastructure is still more stationary than hosts that attach to it, the network operator can use the Internet standard mechanism for configuring the location of the point where a host attaches. Location is local information, and dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) is appropriate for local information. DHCP clients can request just those configuration options they want, and are free to ignore any option. The model is that hosts make the local information available to, or use it to support applications on the host. Because of the variable components of civil addresses, and the universality of geographic coordinates, we still think that coordinates are ideal, while civil locations may be used for some time. Since every position in the real world has some limited precision, and fixed-length binary is more efficient for a small and quick protocol like DHCP, coding the resolution of each coordinate as significant (binary) digits is appropriate. Summary: the parameters of the geographic location option still look good. w.r.t. signing: Much hype surrounding the utilization of digital signing has been put forth. A fear is that current expectation is far greater than capability. What will be the operational differences for emergency response when they receive: 1) A location object signed by a verifiable entity. 2) A location object signed by an unverifiable entity. 3) A location with no signature. It is accepted that emergency calling is a very small (<1%) application for the use of location information. Given the above, is the amount of work to perform digital signatures worth the effort? _______________________________________________ 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 Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:53:36 -0600

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 15 2007 - 17:53:05 EST