Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-02 ???

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

Roger

There were comments in Philly that 128 was an arbitrary number 
without backing, so why was it picked.  There was also discussion on 
the difference between unique and random in Philly, which was 
resolved -- but that doesn't mean either issue is dropped.

James

At 03:03 PM 4/1/2008, Roger Marshall wrote:
>The following summarizes the third of the three original subj:
>questions, Q1,Q2,Q3:
>
>Q3.
>
>...about draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-01
>Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 4:24 PM, From: James M. Polk
>
> >
> > I may have missed the text, but I don't see it in a
> > requirement -- but at the last meeting, I was told by James W
> > and Hannes that each LbyR URI MUST be unique.  I don't read
> > that anywhere in this ID.
> >
> > I read that "...it MUST be hard to guess..."
> >
> > why can't all 200 participants in the room draw from a
> > smaller pool of numbers that a cryptographically random
> > value?  It would still be "hard to guess" who has which identifier...
>
>Not much discussion here, but there seemed to be two differing views on
>this:
>
>[a.] One view (Hannes) is that we need to add a new requirement...
>
> > [...from...] Tschofenig, Hannes
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 3:48 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Q3 about
>draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-01
> >
> > Uniqueness is very important. The draft should really have
> > such a requirement. Saying that a part of the identifier is
> > random is not enough.
> >
> > We need to add a requirement.
>
>[b.] the other view, (James P. responding to Richard's clarification
>q's), seems to take some exception with the idea of a new req.
>
>[...from...] James M. Polk
>Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 7:05 PM To: Richard Barnes; Tschofenig,
>Hannes
>Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Q3 about draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-01
> >
> > At 08:27 PM 2/17/2008, Richard Barnes wrote:
> > >Could you two clarify what you mean by "unique"?
> >
> > well, this is part of what I was getting at. For example,
> > within RFC 3261, the Call-ID value "MUST be unique through
> > space and time" -- meaning the alphanumeric value is never
> > repeatable by any UA ever, not just within the same UA.
> >
> > This is reeeeally unique.
> >
> > I think this is more than we need here.
> >
> > >That is, within what scope should the URI be unique?
> >
> > I think a URI has to be unique within a LIS for all clients
> > that have asked for one. I'm not sure we need to be any more
> > unique than that.
> >
> > >Do you mean to prevent the LS from issuing multiple URIs
> > that refer to
> > >the same location?
> >
> > I actually don't see a problem in this... but I could be
> > wrong (and want to know why I'm wrong BTW)
> >
> > >Or are you trying to rule out a case where an LS just hands
> > out one URI
> > >(or a few URIs), then hands out different LOs depending on who asks
> > >(i.e., the LS uses one URI to refer to multiple LOs)?
> >
> > No, from my pov, unique means that a LIS has one unique URI
> > for each client that has asked for one.
> >
> > I do not believe this URI has to be unique from what's given
> > out tomorrow, as long as no two clients have the same URI.
> > This is one of the uses of the valid-for parameter (that both
> > the DHCP Option ID and HELD ID have).  My client shouldn't
> > necessarily always be given the same URI, since there is no
> > real guarantee it won't be compromised, someone will always
> > have knowledge of my URI once they learn it once.
> >
> > Having my URI change periodically has a benefit, as long as
> > it doesn't change sooner than the active timer of the
> > 'valid-for' parameter is set (unless there's been a new
> > request and a particular client's URI has been overwritten.
>
>SUMMARY:
>I don't have any further record of any progression on the topic, which
>kept me from adding said requirement in -02.  What should the resolution
>now be?
>
>Thanks.
>
>-roger marshall.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:19 PM
> > To: Hannes Tschofenig
> > Cc: GEOPRIV
> > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-02 ???
> >
> > At 07:53 AM 3/30/2008, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> > >It seems that you are saying that Roger has to keep things going.
> >
> > All I'm saying is that there was never a post articulating
> > what the consensus reached answers were to each of the 3
> > questions I asked on the list.  I don't believe that is
> > asking a lot. Do you think this is asking too much?
> >
> > Each of the 3 questions had ~ 5 to 75 responses, so there
> > were a lot of folks interested in the questions, and
> > obviously the first response didn't answer any of the 3 Qs right away.
> >
> >
> > >Roger, could you post a description of the outstanding issues with a
> > >suggestions on how to address them?
> > >
> > >Ciao
> > >Hannes
> > >
> > >James M. Polk wrote:
> > > > At 12:40 PM 3/29/2008, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> > > >> Given the status of HELD this document should have been
> > finished a
> > > >> while ago.
> > > >> I am not even sure whether I have seen a WGLC for it.
> > > >>
> > > >> What are the next steps for it?
> > > >> Why isn't it done already?
> > > >
> > > > weeeeelllll....
> > > >
> > > > There were 3 fairly substantiative questions posted
> > against -01 of
> > > > the ID just before the -0X deadline, and there needs to
> > be time for
> > > > proper review of -02 to see if this version answers at
> > least these 3 questions.
> > > >
> > > > I think 1 has been answered
> > > >
> > > > I think another has not reached consensus
> > > >
> > > > and the last wasn't answered at all
> > > >
> > > > but this is memory (which may or may not be reliable)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Geopriv mailing list
> > > >> [e-mail]
> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Geopriv mailing list
> > >[e-mail]
> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
>
>
>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.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

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