IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-03 feedback - additional

"Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz> Mon, 17 October 2016 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=30981ee20e=brian.rosen@neustar.biz>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992D61294CA for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=neustar.biz
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mwwCApjrAzJi for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-0018ba01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AD35129492 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0078664.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u9HKNJsG028230; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:24:25 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=neustar.biz; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=neustar-biz; bh=PEtdHoNROd7jsqG1hxXl+CkL0CgKA6dhztFx1pSbSG8=; b=EisL4RttAw1fLDhOR7s57GPgQ3LBbsF3Fh13aCotUm5NLQClhuuvOnYNzgflVSoTKpAD 3u0ifS/Pg961sw4bHXQXS41jQEUImMfjtA+zUtCYZc74tDj7flVfbWsRZ5eSYOnXHrOE h9DsQCARFk6a5q8UiATaDUNNOuGZk9DzJjRBVjTQezo6ODwM9lPVtA4S9rB1NFDOmPik vUuJD0X8IUkNvSP0pN0/LSY96ALWtpIrP5ekzLuVi94HyZ5HBFJ+kZTg5vaMH0cJi0ev zeBEKy9FlTXUG0ezI8m4pL6VSlgHWUdYrxEOGg6B13jr47mAvHF/9CVV73KbI75LEy5m VA==
Received: from stntexhc11.cis.neustar.com ([156.154.17.216]) by mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2641a42r2g-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:24:25 -0400
Received: from STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.5.94]) by stntexhc11.cis.neustar.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0279.002; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:24:23 -0400
From: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
To: Dan Banks <DBanks@ddti.net>, "ecrit@ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-03 feedback - additional
Thread-Index: AdImVs8NPtvfjq8fRFauw1QoYUYzqACXaE6A
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 20:24:23 +0000
Message-ID: <D42AAAA2.F03E6%brian.rosen@neustar.biz>
References: <MWHPR17MB1071230707C1DFC2AA96FE1DA7D00@MWHPR17MB1071.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR17MB1071230707C1DFC2AA96FE1DA7D00@MWHPR17MB1071.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.8.151023
x-originating-ip: [10.33.193.29]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D42AAAA2F03E6brianrosenneustarbiz_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-10-17_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/r_sKHBZbzEq1RZGe3Jwh1Lqd9ww>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-03 feedback - additional
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 20:24:28 -0000

I don’t really have a problem with having this option, but one question I have is what would the client do with that information?  I can’t think of any behavior change that return of that information would trigger.

Brian

From: Dan Banks <DBanks@ddti.net<mailto:DBanks@ddti.net>>
Date: Monday, October 17, 2016 at 4:18 PM
To: "ecrit@ietf.org<mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>" <ecrit@ietf.org<mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>>
Cc: Brian Rosen <brian.rosen@neustar.biz<mailto:brian.rosen@neustar.biz>>
Subject: draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-03 feedback - additional

There is one thing I would like to add to the feedback which I sent recently on the similar location draft:

Section 4 discusses briefly the possibility of the server limiting the number of returned similar locations.  Although the current text expresses the general idea that there may be a few that are the “most likely” to be the correct location, there are also scenarios where many similar locations could all be equally likely, and the server might need to simply cut off the list at a reasonable count.  In those situations, I believe it would be helpful if the server indicated when such  a limit is actually applied.

I suggest that an attribute be added to the locationValidation element of the findService response, perhaps rli:similarLocationsLimited, having a data type of boolean, with instructions that a server SHOULD include this attribute if the number of returned similar locations is limited due to configuration or policy.

Dan Banks

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email