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

Thanks Paul.

> On 10 Aug 2015, at 11:22 pm, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> On 8/9/15 4:41 AM, James Winterbottom wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> I have gone through the note of the dispatch meeting for this draft as
>> well as relying only my memory for what was discussed and I am at a bit
>> of a loss as to how to update this draft in a way so that it can proceed.
>> 
>> I totally agree with Keith’s assessment about the relevancy of the
>> privacy issue raised by Cullen.
>> 
>> Keith is right, in that the current primary intended use is not “inside”
>> and IMS network, though I believe that the nodes employing this
>> mechanism will have strong relationships with IMS nodes, most likely an
>> E-CSCF or something resembling one.
>> 
>> Paul is also right. While IMS is not the chief customer, it is likely to
>> be one of the downstream recipients and as such it does rely on strong
>> trust relationships. So to this end a tie to RFC3325 is probably warranted.
>> 
>> Would it be reasonable then to:
>> 
>> 1. Add a tie in to RFC3325 with regards to trust
> 
> This would make me happy. Without an explanation of the expectations of the trust relationship the contents of this header field are meaningless.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
>> 2. Explicitly say that the loc-src needs to be a fully qualified host
>>    name and that IP address must not be used?
>> 
>> 
>> These seem to be be the two main points I took away. If this were done
>> could we do a list-based dispatch for this draft?
>> 
>> Cheers
>> James
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch@ietf.org <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>