Re: [Ecrit] Fwd: Liaison from DSL Forum to ecrit and geopriv

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

Barbara

comments in-line

At 01:12 PM 4/23/2008, Stark, Barbara wrote:
>Hi Karl Heinz,
>Thanks for reading it.
>
>I specifically removed the check for whether or not there was a response
>from LLDP-MED. By removing that, the device no longer has to wait for
>LLDP-MED to timeout before initiating the DHCP. I'm assuming there will
>be no LLDP in the majority of consumer scenarios.

however, LLDP-MED will likely be quite often in enterprise 
situations, and understanding the level of spillover between the two 
network environments (residential and enterprise -- not to mention 
that there really isn't a clear-cut choice for the SMB market to 
choose between these two, meaning they will come from either, 
therefore both point products) -- I'm not sure I agree with this opinion.

>Not waiting makes
>things work faster.

but could (possibly) result in receiving location from two sources. 
Given the lack of guidance of what to do with more than one location 
source (does the UA send both?') and what the receiver does with 
receiving both (which *one* does it deem true (or truer) to use?).

>In discussions with various people, we came to the
>conclusion that there was really no negative consequence to not waiting
>for LLDP-MED to either return a response or timeout. This is also
>consistent with phonebcp, which expresses a preference for trying all
>location configuration protocols.
>
>I hadn't checked to see that all PIDF-LO fields had a corresponding
>CAtype. I see that you're right. Yes, DHCP is missing method.

I'm not sure what you mean by DHCP=manual needs to be there.  Both 
LLDP-MED and DHCP are in the "server-to-client" direction.  Unless 
I'm misunderstanding what you and Karl seem to be agreeing to, you 
want DHCP and LLDP-MED to be able to send LCI in the 
"client-to-whatever" direction. This isn't the way these protocols 
are designed to work.

>It also lacks a signing ability (if one is ever created).

I'm not sure I understand this concern...

>I'm also concerned with the ability to represent some of the ideas 
>currently in
>draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-11, like multiple LO in a single
>PIDF-LO.

Is this concern that DHCP can't send more than one LCI at the same time?

I'm just trying to figure out this exchange... sorry if I've missed 
the point of it

>That particular example probably isn't relevant to this case,
>but I still worry that some change may be made to PIDF-LO in the future
>that DHCP/LLDP-MED wont be able to express.
>
>Thanks for mentioning the bad reference.
>Barbara
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Karl Heinz Wolf [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:32 AM
>To: Stark, Barbara
>Cc: ECRIT
>Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Fwd: Liaison from DSL Forum to ecrit and geopriv
>
>Hi Barbara!
>
>I read your new DSL-Forum document, and I think there is something
>missing in flow A.
>If one takes the NO path from "is DHCP used for IP address config?",
>then there is no check for LLDP-MED success as in case for YES.
>
>One questions regarding server location 12: why should manually
>configured civic location not be advertised by LLDP-MED or DHCP.
>phonebcp says all fields of PIDF-LO must be able to be specified
>(ED-15). All the civic location parts have their according CAType
>number (which would fit in DHCP and LLDP-MED), but you cannot say
>method=manual in these protocols, is this the actual reason for your
>requirement?
>
>just a note for requirement Server location 2: it should be RFC4776 I
>think.
>
>Thank you for publishing your document here.
>
>-- karl heinz
>
>
>On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
> >
> >  Jon and I receive the following email with three files attached. I
> >  have removed the attachments form the email and put them and a PDF
> >  version of them at the following URL.
> >
> >  http://idisk.mac.com/cullenfluffyjennings-Public?view=web
> >
> >  Cullen
> >
> >
> >  Begin forwarded message:
> >  > From: "Stark, Barbara" <[e-mail]>
> >  > Date: March 28, 2008 12:53:23 PM PDT
> >  > To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> >  > Subject: Liaison from DSL Forum to ecrit and geopriv
> >  >
> >  > Jon, Cullen,
> >  > Attached is a liaison from the DSL Forum to ecrit and geopriv WGs
> >  > regarding IP device requirements for emergency services. If you
>could
> >  > pass it along to those groups, I'd appreciate it.
> >  >
> >  > Thanks,
> >  > Barbara
> >  >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ecrit mailing list
> >  [e-mail]
> >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> >
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit