Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis (affecting Sections 2, 2.1 and 6.2)
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 23 June 2009 00:04 UTC
Return-Path: <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40E4F28C0E0 for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.073
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.824, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OZ37ICgBydZs for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2746B3A69EC for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/ICT) with ESMTP id n5N04Fd0001294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:04:16 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.47]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:04:15 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>, "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "rbarnes@bbn.com" <rbarnes@bbn.com>, "mlinsner@cisco.com" <mlinsner@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:04:13 +0200
Thread-Topic: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis (affecting Sections 2, 2.1 and 6.2)
Thread-Index: Acnq3XVnJmBB39rGT9KLVUVAwB4rQQGGoPPQAHTGsGAAMrQmoA==
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE206F6172F@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <C64EF449.15E03%mlinsner@cisco.com> <4A2D6D36.10405@bbn.com><BLU137-DAV10262D93E54B1BA439FA1493450@phx.gbl><XFE-SJC-212rr1h9sEG00000114@xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com><BLU137-W335854C47CBD24AAC6FBEB93420@phx.gbl><E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF105E1B3DD@AHQEX1.andrew.com><BLU137-W22D3469360D25F6D0E219993420@phx.gbl> <XFE-SJC-212BEr8pkpL000001e4@xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE206F2216E@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF105EC760F@AHQEX1.andrew.com>
In-Reply-To: <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF105EC760F@AHQEX1.andrew.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 155.132.188.84
Cc: "geopriv@ietf.org" <geopriv@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis (affecting Sections 2, 2.1 and 6.2)
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv>
List-Post: <mailto:geopriv@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:04:20 -0000
Read the text. In 1) you define both a sending requirement and a receiving requirement for the existing codepoint. In 2 you define only a receiving requirement, and do not allow new implementations to send it (i.e. it is there only for dealing with legacy implementations that send it). regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomson, Martin [mailto:Martin.Thomson@andrew.com] > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:00 AM > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); James M. Polk; Bernard Aboba; > rbarnes@bbn.com; mlinsner@cisco.com > Cc: geopriv@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis > (affecting Sections 2, 2.1 and 6.2) > > Hi Keith, > > I don't see any practical difference between the outcome of 1 > and 2. It's an exercise in labelling that materially changes > nothing. We waste too much time on labelling. > > --Martin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:drage@alcatel-lucent.com] > > Sent: Saturday, 20 June 2009 2:14 AM > > To: James M. Polk; Bernard Aboba; Thomson, Martin; rbarnes@bbn.com; > > mlinsner@cisco.com > > Cc: geopriv@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis > (affecting > > Sections 2, 2.1 and 6.2) > > > > I dont agree with the specifics of: > > > > > Given that this bis doc is going to obsolete 3825, then > this bis doc > > > is defining both version 0 and 1 - because someone can > still choose > > > (and I'm not sure why they would, but they > > > could) to implement only what works in version 0 of this spec. > > > > > > That this doc specifies both v0 and v1 needs to be said > if anything > > > is said., and I think something needs to be said - given we're > > > obsoleting 3825 "for cause". > > > > > > > The fact that the bis exists does not remove RFC 3825 from > existence, > > it merely labels it obsolete. Moreover implementations to RFC 3825 > > continue to exist. There is no automatic requirement that an > > implementation conformant to RFC 3825 is also conformant to the bis. > > What we need is compatibility. So in effect two options > exist for each > > change (between which the group has to decide) while maintaining > > compatibility: > > > > 1) The existing behaviour is decided by the group to be useful for > > new implementations, in addition to the proposed new behaviour. In > > which case, the bis document defines both (for both sender and > > receiver). > > > > 2) The existing behaviour is decided by the group to be not > > preferred. In that case the new behaviour is specified. For > > compatibility with existing implementations, new > implementations have > > to be required to receive what old implementations send. > > > > There is a third option that the existing behaviour is so > broken that > > existing implementations do not work with each other, in which case > > any compatibility requirements are moot. This however does > not apply > > in this case. > > > > regards > > > > Keith > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org > > > [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James M. Polk > > > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:42 PM > > > To: Bernard Aboba; martin.thomson@andrew.com; rbarnes@bbn.com; > > > mlinsner@cisco.com > > > Cc: geopriv@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis > (affecting > > > Sections 2, 2.1 and 6.2) > > > > > > Given that this bis doc is going to obsolete 3825, then > this bis doc > > > is defining both version 0 and 1 - because someone can > still choose > > > (and I'm not sure why they would, but they > > > could) to implement only what works in version 0 of this spec. > > > > > > That this doc specifies both v0 and v1 needs to be said > if anything > > > is said., and I think something needs to be said - given we're > > > obsoleting 3825 "for cause". > > > > > > At 11:47 PM 6/10/2009, Bernard Aboba wrote: > > > >Thanks for pointing out the error. > > > > > > > >I guess we're pointing out that implementers should check the > > > >length field, then look at the 2 most significant bits > of the last > > > >octet to determine the version, rather than just > assuming that the > > > length = 16. > > > > > > > >Should we point out that RFC 3825 was version 0, and that this > > > >specification defines version 1? > > > >Some text probably belongs in the IANA considerations section > > > >describing how version numbers are allocated (presumably by > > > Standards > > > >Action, no?) > > > > > > > > > > > >---------- > > > >Subject: RE: Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis (affecting > > > Sections 2, > > > >2.1 and 6.2) > > > >Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:29:28 -0500 > > > >From: Martin.Thomson@andrew.com > > > >To: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com; jmpolk@cisco.com; > rbarnes@bbn.com; > > > >mlinsner@cisco.com > > > >CC: geopriv@ietf.org > > > > > > > >Hi Bernard, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I think that you have these back to front. The version tags > > > need to go > > > >in the MSB, so that old versions using the LSBs aren't > > > affected. Other > > > >than that, I think that it's OK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Is it worth pointing out that the version tags can > change anything, > > > >including the length of the entire option? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] > > > >Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2009 2:25 PM > > > >To: jmpolk@cisco.com; rbarnes@bbn.com; mlinsner@cisco.com > > > >Cc: Thomson, Martin; geopriv@ietf.org > > > >Subject: Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis (affecting > Sections 2, > > > >2.1 and 6.2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Can someone enter a ticket for this? > > > > > > > >Below are the proposed changes. Please review. The -01 > > > strawman with > > > >these changes is available here: > > > >http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/GEOPRIV/draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3 > > > 825bis-01. > > > >txt > > > > > > > >In Section 2, change: > > > > > > > > 0 1 2 > 3 > > > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 > 6 7 8 9 0 1 > > > > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > > + > > > > | Code 123 | 16 | LaRes | Latitude > > + > > > > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > > + > > > > | Latitude (cont'd) | LoRes | > > + > > > > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > > + > > > > | Longitude > > | > > > > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > > + > > > > | AT | AltRes | Altitude > > | > > > > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > > + > > > > | Alt (cont'd) | Datum | > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > > > > > >To: > > > > > > > > 0 1 2 > 3 > > > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 > 6 7 8 9 0 1 > > > > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > > + > > > > | Code 123 | 16 | LaRes | Latitude > > + > > > > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > > + > > > > | Latitude (cont'd) | LoRes | > > + > > > > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > > + > > > > | Longitude > > | > > > > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > > + > > > > | AT | AltRes | Altitude > > | > > > > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > > + > > > > | Alt (cont'd) |Datum| Res |Ver| > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > > > > > > > > > >In Section 2.1, change: > > > > > > > > The Datum byte has 256 possibilities, of which 3 have been > > > > registered > > > > > > > >To: > > > > > > > > The Datum field is 3 bits, providing 8 possibilities, of > > > which 3 have > > > > been registered > > > > > > > >At the end of Section 2.1 add: > > > > > > > > The Res field which is 3 bits, is reserved. These bits have > > been > > > > used by [IEEE-802.11y], but are not defined within this > > > > specification. > > > > > > > > The Ver field is two bits, and represents a version > > > field, providing > > > > for 4 potential versions. > > > > > > > >In Section 6.2, add: > > > > > > > >[IEEE-802.11y] > > > > Information technology - Telecommunications and > > > information > > > > exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area > > > > networks - Specific requirements - Part 11: > Wireless LAN > > > > Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) > > > > specifications Amendment 3: 3650-3700 MHz > > > Operation in USA, > > > > November 2008. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:56:49 -0500 > > > > > To: Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com; rbarnes@bbn.com; > > mlinsner@cisco.com > > > > > From: jmpolk@cisco.com > > > > > Subject: RE: Text for 3825bis > > > > > CC: Martin.Thomson@andrew.com > > > > > > > > > > Bernard > > > > > > > > > > I assume you can make the edits about splitting the datum > > > field into > > > > > 3 parts, as I don't see that as controversial, and I > > > think you have > > > > > much of the idea from Richard, and can look in section 2 of > > > > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-geopriv-3825-update-0 > > > > > 0.txt for how the datum field is being broken up. > > > > > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---------- > > > >------------------------- This message is for the designated > > > recipient > > > >only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or > otherwise private > > > >information. > > > >If you have received it in error, please notify the sender > > > immediately > > > >and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is > > > >prohibited. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---------- > > > >------------------------- > > > >[mf2] > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Geopriv mailing list > > > Geopriv@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------- > This message is for the designated recipient only and may > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of > this email is prohibited. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------- > [mf2] >
- [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis (aff… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis … Thomson, Martin
- Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis … Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis … Thomson, Martin
- Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis … Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis … Thomson, Martin
- Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis … James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis … James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis … DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis … Thomson, Martin
- Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis … DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Geopriv] Datum field changes in RFC 3825bis … Thomson, Martin
- [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Thomson, Martin
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Ray.Bellis
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Gabor.Bajko
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Gabor.Bajko
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Gabor.Bajko
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Marc Linsner
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Ted Hardie
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Gabor.Bajko
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Brian Rosen
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Gabor.Bajko
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" (1 LCP… James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Marc Linsner
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Stark, Barbara
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Thomson, Martin
- Re: [Geopriv] Issue: version "negotiation" Bernard Aboba