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

I think you forgot the big gorilla in the room on L7 LCP, which is the
choice of identifiers, and the issues associated with using IP addresses on
those identifiers in some circumstances.

I think your summary of the other three issues is good.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@hxr.us]
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:45 PM
> To: GEOPRIV WG
> Subject: [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

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:50:06 -0500