Re: [dispatch] draft-winterbottom-dispatch-locparam

James Winterbottom <> Sun, 19 July 2015 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8681A1BBC for <>; Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_39=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ATqRJroDQZDa for <>; Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B03D1A1A34 for <>; Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacan13 with SMTP id an13so82295138pac.1 for <>; Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=IM/GQjjnM2dd9LKz7wPgrDkHGiNYNk264TBf6XoKYAc=; b=pKScrK3gajKkqDz13EEOFbiiM1tudSDix42OhTlZNY7t4B0WUO+yEtWDgr1OSH8FOa qUIwaNSS0ihdOvPIEVkrL7OzOqztg3M0n8Czh4c02JykuFfH9qQD/at+jY72dJOvvvtB 6wGmA9KNXhdclR/C3dfrDnRAUbW9YxVQic4Laj3vx4BlnYYMkFOaBSNGn0d5uqbLmJSc wCAEWWUlYAwxXSN4RAQ2oOaNboJBn+fwWcvgAvfszpqEOtIWRvTjsI549LAR1XfI1dEo I7kBxxN+FB9NNoMKByrwDhebjunOLSqHATZU8gpI5TbUGrBKCizxugGT+3MvqUvget6g h50Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ud5mr43563137pac.23.1437270596942; Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id gi6sm15481352pbd.69.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: James Winterbottom <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 11:49:52 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-winterbottom-dispatch-locparam
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 01:49:58 -0000

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the comments.

I will get to the questions in a second. I just wanted to say that draft is kind of a stawman to indicate what we would like to do and what we had in mind, we are totally aware that it needs work, we just want to get it to the right group to get the work done.

I can answer the second set of questions quickly, I will need to look up the 3325 question.

Yes, somebody could lie, but if we were to assume some kind of trusted network then there are a multitude of other things that they could also lie about couldn’t they? 

Yes, I was referring to the host from 3261, and I agree that an IP address make little sense. Is there are a better way to specify what we are looking for?

I was thinking some kind of whitelist if terms of preference (how this gets created I see as being largely out of scope), I am not sure how much sense it makes to have a blacklist.


> On 17 Jul 2015, at 12:51 am, Paul Kyzivat <> wrote:
> James,
> I was just looking at this draft. I don't understand what assumptions it is making regarding trust model. Is this intended specifically for 3gpp and its trust model? Section 4 says:
>   If a proxy receives a message
>   from an untrusted source with the loc-src parameter set then it MUST
>   remove the loc-src parameter before passing the message into a
>   trusted network.
> Are we assuming a Spec(t) as defined in 3325?
> And is that enough? The obvious issue is the potential for somebody to lie about the location source.
> Also, the location is specified as a 'host'. I assume you mean that as defined in 3261, where it is defined as:
>  host = hostname / IPv4address / IPv6reference
> Is it really meaningful to use an IP?
> Is the expectation that the recipient will simply use these with a whitelist or blacklist to determine preferences? Or else how will it be used?
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> On 6/23/15 5:11 AM, James Winterbottom wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I a notice about this draft a few weeks ago but haven’t seen and follow up discussion.
>> This work is required in ETSI and I believe that as I understand from some 3GPP folks they would like something similar to this also.
>> I am just not sure where the right final home for it is.
>> Cheers
>> James
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list