[Geopriv] Review of draft-winterbottom-geopriv-lis2lis-req-01.txt
Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> Sat, 24 November 2007 11:22 UTC
Return-path: <geopriv-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivt5x-0003Qa-Lq; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:22:45 -0500
Received: from geopriv by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivt5w-0003NC-Fz for geopriv-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:22:44 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivt5w-0003N4-5A for geopriv@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:22:44 -0500
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivt5v-0000h4-Dc for geopriv@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:22:44 -0500
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2007 11:22:42 -0000
Received: from p549857C6.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.1.5]) [84.152.87.198] by mail.gmx.net (mp030) with SMTP; 24 Nov 2007 12:22:42 +0100
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19okNkRyVhomB5/XihO7ZOIpc7HB0i+YVi0+6ulrZ g4FVBMDU4RwLYz
Message-ID: <47480981.2060608@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:22:41 +0100
From: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: GEOPRIV <geopriv@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b2809b6f39decc6de467dcf252f42af1
Cc:
Subject: [Geopriv] Review of draft-winterbottom-geopriv-lis2lis-req-01.txt
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:geopriv@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
A few notes to the http://tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-lis2lis-req-01.txt document. * I would put a few lines of motivation to the indicated assumptions. 1: A strong trust relationship exists between the regional access provider and ISP. The motivation for this one is created by the need to provide strong authorization. It needs to make sure that only authorized ISP LISs are able to retrieve location information from the regional access LIS 2: Targets only deal directly with the ISP LIS, and may be totally unaware of any regional access provider LIS. A regional access LIS will only ever receive location requests from an ISP LIS. To the end host the regional access provider behaves like a physical / link layer provider. Allowing the end host to deal with the ISP LIS hides the details of the underlying network infrastructure. * Requirements: The requirements need to be written in a way that they point to protocol functionality. 1: Connections (physical and logical) from the ISP LIS to the regional access LIS require both ends to authenticate as part of connection establishment. The security of the data conveyed between the two servers MUST be ensured for both privacy and integrity. Modified requirement: The protocol used between the ISP and the regional access LIS MUST offer mutual authentication and communication security. 2: The data used to identify a Target to the ISP MUST be able to be passed to, and be recognizable by the regional access LIS using the LIS to LIS protocol. This is not really a protocol requirement either. This sentence should go into the BCP. I would say that "The LIS-to-LIS protocol MUST support a wide variety of identities to assist the location determination procedure. The chosen identity is likely to depend onthe specific deployment environment. The set of identities MUST be extensible." The data used to identify a Target to the ISP MUST be consistent with the traffic aggregation method supported by the Regional Access Network Provider. I am not sure I understand this part of the requirement. Can you motivate? 3: Location information returned over a LIS to LIS protocol MUST be in PIDF-LO [RFC4119] format, and MUST comply with [I-D.ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile] . I would also add the revised civic spec here. 4: The type of location information requested by the end-point MUST be relayed to the regional access LIS by the ISP LIS using the LIS to LIS protocol. This is also text that should go into the LIS2LIS BCP. 5: The method used by the regional access LIS to determine the location of the Target MUST be provided to the ISP LIS along with the determined location. This is also text that should go into the LIS2LIS BCP. I suspect that "method" refers to the location determination method. 6: Any usage-rule preferences provided by the Target to the ISP LIS MUST be included in any location returned to the Target or Location Recipient. This requirement has nothing todo with the LIS2LIS communication. This text may go into the LIS2LIS BCP. 7: Additional information provided by the Target to the ISP in a location request that cannot be processed directly by the ISP LIS MUST be forwarded to regional access LIS using the LIS to LIS protocol. The intention of this requirement is to support future LCP functions that require additional information from the Target. I don't have a strong opinion about this requirement. 8: The presentity in the PIDF-LO returned by the regional access LIS MUST have been provided by the ISP LIS. The ISP LIS may create the presentity, or it may have received a presentity from the Target. Hmmm. Why isn't it possible for the ISP LIS to just set the presentity to whatever it wants. The regional LIS wouldn't want to sign the PIDF-LO anyway. 9: The protocol MUST provide support for returning and dealing with error conditions such as "no location found" or "timeout". Is it necessary to state that a protocol has to provide error conditions? * I would merge this document with http://tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-lis2lis-bcp-00.txt since -- few documents need to be read -- draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-lis2lis-bcp-00.txt does not define new protocol mechanism and is therefore quite lightweight _______________________________________________ Geopriv mailing list Geopriv@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
- [Geopriv] Review of draft-winterbottom-geopriv-li… Hannes Tschofenig
- [Geopriv] RE: Review of draft-winterbottom-geopri… Winterbottom, James