[Geopriv] Where we are / are we with L7-LCP

In reviewing the comments on the L7-LCP problem statement and
requirements draft, I see three areas of conversation:

1) The name: location configuration protocol vs. location acquisition
protocol.
2) The On-behalf-of feature.
3) Location signing.

With respect with #1, I have to say that discussion over the name of
the effort is a distraction. I would ask that participants refrain
from this discussion. I understand that one of the protocol
proposals goes by the name LCP, but that is a consequence of the
authors of that proposal helping the working group come to the
conclusion that LCP is a separate issue than L-by-R.

For #2, some of the participants have come to the conclusion that OBO
is also a separable issue, in that it is an LS-to-LS (LIS-to-LIS)
issue and not an LCP issue, and that OBO should influence the
requirements for L-by-R. I realize that not everybody agrees with
this, but for those who wish to have OBO constrained to the LCP
problem it should be noted that there is no consensus for this
position, and that OBO with regard to L-by-R and LS-to-LS would
likely find consensus with their support.

Finally, there is #3... by far the thorniest issue with many
differing views. Here is my attempt to enumerate the positions
(putting aside any IPR conversation):

   a) Those that don't support it. There are many reasons, from
complexity to disbelief about the use case to issues about
administrative overhead.

   b) Those that support it only for L7-LCP.

   c) Those that support it for all types location configuration
protocols.

Have I missed any angles?

-andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:44:54 -0500