RE: [Geopriv] Question on client identifier in HELD (re: HELDguidance for IP address ID)

From: Brian Rosen ^lt;>
Date: Fri Nov 16 2007 - 11:22:16 EST

I had the same reaction, but the only thing I think we should change is to
add some text that makes it more clear that the protocol is intended to be
extended for other identifiers, and while IP address is a suitable
identifier for many networks, it may not work well in others. Perhaps this
could be tied to the text we are discussing that describes the issues with
using IP address as the identifier.

I have no problem with other identifiers being covered in an extension
document, and do not want to hold up HELD to get other text in it that
covers other identifiers.


From: Mary Barnes []
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 11:12 AM
To:; Geopriv
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Question on client identifier in HELD (re:
HELDguidance for IP address ID)

Hi Peter,
This wasn't something that was simplified out of the original HELD proposal
- i.e, using the source IP address as the device ID was the premise of the
original proposal.   Feedback I got from James (he and others will jump in
if I've gotten this wrong) is that the source IP address is sufficient for
many applications.
From: []
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 3:01 PM
To: Geopriv
Subject: [Geopriv] Question on client identifier in HELD (re: HELD guidance
for IP address ID)

Hi all,

All this chatter about IP address as device identifier made me go back and
look again at how this identifier is described in HELD itself.  I was
surprised to notice that HELD itself
(draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-02) does not appear to spec a
device identifier internal to the encoding schema at all.  It appears to be
the intent to use the source address of the message as it arrives at the LIS
to derive source IP address of the sender (or their out-most external facing
NAT really).  I also see that a format for encoding device identifier is
described as an extension
(draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-03).  Did I miss

This seems a bit odd to me, and that's probably why I never noticed -- just
assumed it had to be there somewhere.  I am curious about the reasoning to
not include device identifier in the base protocol.  Just weight reduction,
given that not all applications would use it?  I'm probably fine either way,
just interested to know.  

BTW, Since the device may have little-to-no idea about its IP address as
visible to the outside world (it is generally behind one or more NATs), I
don't think this question plays into that other debate at all.

-- Peter

Geopriv mailing list
Received on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:22:16 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 11:22:28 EST