RE: [Geopriv] Comments to draft-thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery-02

From: Winterbottom, James ^lt;>
Date: Sat Jul 21 2007 - 16:18:18 EDT

Hi Hannes, A few points. > I have a few comments. The document is important for the entire HELD > solution and hence it is extremely important to discuss it during this > meeting. [AJW] Agreed > I also suggest a wide review within the IETF very early in the process > since these discovery aspects can cause serious delays during the IETF > Last Call. > [AJW] Agreed > I think that the DHCP discovery and the DNS-based discovery shouldn't be > in the same draft. > [AJW] We had two separate drafts for this and at the behest of a previous chair we combined them. What may be a more reasonable approach is to convert this document into a general "This is how you find local services" document, and put the specific UNAPTR and HELD bits into the HELD draft. > > Terminology > ------------ > > Use the terms we always use: IAP, ISP instead of "access networks" and > "access network provider" > > Let us use the term LCS instead of LIS. > [AJW] <soapbox> I still hate the term LCS because of its widespread alternate usage in 3GPP (there are literally 10s of specs that use LCS for location services). LIS is being used in a number of other specifications, and is appearing in lots of RFIs/RFPs and RFQs. I think that we in the IETF are picking something different, just for the sake of being different here, and it is going to cause confusion in the wider industry.</soapbox> > Discovery of "PUBLIC IP ADDRESS" > ---------------------------------------- > > There are many protocols out there that allow the end host to > communicate with a NAT to learn the public IP address. > Now there two approaches: > * You list some of them in the document and make one mandatory to > implement > * You describe the one that is mandatory to implement and indicate that > other mechanisms may be used as welll > > I prefer the latter approach. Maybe STUN would be a good approach to use. > [AJW] You don't think that the document does this? > Discovery Order > ----------------- > > I think that this text needs to be in HELD rather than in this document. > [AJW] If this document is to be the basis for local service discovery then I think the order is better here. If we decide to split it up into DHCP and DNS again, then your suggestion is good, though it will make the HELD draft longer again.. ;) > > > Extensions > ----------- > > I believe that the concept in general might have a broader applicability > and hence I would suggest to generalize the work on the DNS-based > discovery procedure to support other applications as well. I think it > would be interesting to use this stuff for LoST as well (not in the > current LoST document but as a future extension). > [AJW] See above. > > Operational Considerations > ---------------------------- > > I also believe that the document should have a section that talks about > the operational considerations for the DNS-based discovery approach. It > essentially requires the ISP to have the IP addresses of the end hosts > or the DSL routers in the DNS in order for this resolution step to work. > [AJW] This is kind of covered. Would it be reasonable to add this in an appendix? > > It is good to have an example in the text. > [AJW] Do you like the current example, or do you want another one? > Ciao > Hannes > > > > _______________________________________________ > Geopriv mailing list > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
Received on Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:18:18 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 21 2007 - 16:18:36 EDT