Re: [Ecrit] Discussion on draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc-04

I'm a believer in the discrete query model.  It's basic, it's ECRIT std.
1. Query for location, then 
2. Query for routing

This two-query approach can be done (including from the VSP to the ASP) by reusing the existing ECRIT model:

a. from the VSP, a HELD query to the LS to retrieve location information (LbyV) or retrieve Location URI (LbyR)
b. from the VSP, a Routing query (you can reuse LoST here) with either
   --  Location Info payload (RFC 5222) to a LoST server (this could be a new ETSI contribution), or
   --  Location by Reference sent in a LoST query (if you don't want the VSP to ever "see" the location info, though this would require an extension to RFC5222)

The ASP's LS could simply be a LoST Server containing a table, or GIS data layers - and if not found, it could recurse to a different LoST server/FG.

-roger.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ecrit [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rosen, Brian
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:22 PM
To: Marc Linsner
Cc: ecrit_ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Discussion on draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc-04

Let's also qualify that "In Europe" is this specific ETSI work.  There is other work (EENA) that uses the IETF approach holistically.  It may be that the ETSI work succeeds and is deployed in some countries for some time, but I would not recommend betting against the EENA approach long term.

Brian

On Jul 29, 2014, at 5:13 PM, Marc Linsner (mlinsner) <mlinsner@cisco.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 at 4:58 PM
> To: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
> Cc: Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com>, "ecrit_ietf.org"
> <ecrit@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Discussion on 
> draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc-04
> 
>> Brian,
>> 
>> If this really is your sentiment then why are we having this debate?
>> By your own admission LbyR in LoST requires at least some rough 
>> location, this doesn¹t meet the requirements we have outlined.
>> The routing returned in HELD will meet the requirements in Europe, 
>> can¹t we just get on with producing a spec please?
> 
> 
> The problem is the requirements are for the most part fallacious.
> 
> When queried why the VSP can¹t have LbyV if it¹s covered by their 
> EULA, the answer is, in that case they can have LbyV.
> 
> -Marc-
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Cheers
>> James
>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Right, it's a query no matter which entity does it, or which 
>>>> protocol is used.
>>> Yeah.  That¹s why even though I have a preference for 
>>> LoST-does-LbyR, I am not really against HELD-returns-route.
>>> 
>>> Brian
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecrit mailing list
>> Ecrit@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and network.