Re: [Geopriv] Brian Rosen on location signing

On Mar 13, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Dawson, Martin wrote:

> Well I think that'd be great. I'd certainly prefer to discuss ways to
> unify the ways to sign location than to spend time arguing about
> whether
> we are going to let the end users have location signing to begin with.

Certainly, one answer is to say "let us go forward with the caveats
given; if it is unworkable in the field we'll have no choice than to
find another solution."

> DHCP and LLDP-MED are essentially the same form of location
> representation right and they don't use PIDF-LO as do at least some of
> the candidate "L7" (I really hate the label) protocols do?

I believe that is correct.

> Now - SIP conveyance assumes a PIDF-LO form and, certainly, the
> NENA i2
> architecture stated PIDF-LO as the standard representation.
>
> What would the mechanics be, then, between the point of querying the
> DHCP server or LLDP-MED-enabled switch port for location and the point
> of dispatching the PIDF-LO in the SIP signalling? That is where and
> how
> could the signature components be generated and transported?

Well, there could be a new DHCP option for requesting the signature.
This signature could then be put in an element in PIDF-LO such as
<sig4119:signature>.......</sig4119:signature>. If an L7 protocol
populates that element, it would mean it went through the same
process for canonicalizing and signing the data.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:52:45 -0400