[Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-06
Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> Tue, 29 September 2009 21:52 UTC
Return-Path: <rbarnes@bbn.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 E78D53A67DA for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.462
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.137, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 9k2rLVAqG+Vi for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx11.bbn.com (mx11.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E3A3A680C for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.1.255.181] (helo=col-dhcp-192-1-255-181.bbn.com) by mx11.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1MsjhV-0007n7-Fj for geopriv@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:53:34 -0400
Message-ID: <4AC281DE.7010305@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:53:34 -0400
From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 'GEOPRIV' <geopriv@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-06
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, 29 Sep 2009 21:52:15 -0000
----- Draft: draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-06 Reviewer: Richard Barnes Review Date: 29 Sep 09 General Comments: 1. This draft is in pretty good shape overall, although there are a few critical sections that need to be added. 2. There needs to be tighter wording around allowed URI schemes and how the client processes the URIs it receives. I would suggest using a different LUriType for each type of URI (sip/sips/pres vs. http vs. geo ...) -- this will allow you to (1) save a registry, and (2) have multiple dereference schemes available for a URI scheme. That latter feature could be very useful for HTTP URIs, for example. This also avoids the issue of whether HTTP/HELD is included, since the HELD deref document can register a new LUriType for itself. 3. This document cannot mandate a policy for the URIs it carries, either access-controlled or possession-model. The approach here should be the same as in HELD (they both provide URIs unilaterally, with no way to set policy): "Servers SHOULD apply access control policy to URIs; clients MUST assume that URI is not access controlled, since it has no way to know what the policy is." 4. The document needs to better define the format for LUriValues. It's not clear that it makes sense here to just have UTF-8 strings (as RFC 4776 does). Suggest making Valid-For an integer of some fixed precision, and LocationUri a UTF-8 string. 5. Can multiple URIs be provided? If so, how do the Valid-For attributes map to them? Do all the URIs get the same Valid-For, or can I define different ones per URI? Specific Comments: Section 1, paragraph 2 s/Dereferencing a location URI/Dereferencing a SIP location URI/ Section 1, paragraph 3 s/having a PIDF-LO/having a location object/ Section 1, paragraph 8 Full stop after "given out". Change latter half to: "In cases where multiple client have the same location, the unique URIs assigned to these clients can all reference the same location object, relieving the LS from maintaining each location individually." Section 1, paragraph 9 s/vary, and/vary, according to/ Section 2.1 / 2.2 Make the formatting of the IPv4 and IPv6 sections the same. Choose either the "XXX" or "option-" format. Add an RFC editor note to fill in the assigned value for the option code in each case. Section 2.3 As I mentioned above, this section needs to have a little more structure. Suggest 1. Move Valid-For to LUriType=0 2. Change LUriType=1 to "SIP Presence URI" (sip/sips/pres scheme) 3. Add two sub-sections here, one for each LUriType 4. Move appropriate content under subsections Section 3, paragraph 1 s/there is zero knowledge by the client/the client doesn't know/ Section 3, example URIs A more realistic (tempting) example might be something like sip:[mac-address]@example.com s/*this*/the/ Change "The entity= discussion is orthogonal to" to " The identity contained in the 'entity' attribute of a PDIF-LO is independent of the identification information in a location URI." Section 3, paragraph starting "The deference..." This paragraph is false -- the DHCP client needs to know how to handle a URI it gets, so this document needs to define (by reference) how such URIs are handled. All that really means is that when you register an LUriType, you MUST point to a standards-track document (such as the SIP location-conveyance spec) that defines how URIs of that type are handled. Section 3.1, Bullet 2 This discussion is exactly backwards. It MUST be assumed that a location URI attained using DHCP will NOT operate under an authorization model, since the client has no way to know what policy is being applied. Section 3.3 Delete this section, or move it up to section 2.3.2 (for LUriType=1=Sip Presence URI) Section 4.4 Delete this section; this registry is unnecessary if we use LUriType=1=Sip Presence URI Section 5, paragraph 1 Delete the first part of this sentence: "Where critical decisions might be based on the value of this location URI option..." There's no need to qualify a SHOULD. Remove the following paragraph break. Section 5, paragraph 2 Change "It is not secure in a practical sense" to "It is secured only at layers 1 and 2." Change "DHCP will be primarily..." to "DHCP is often...". Change "to within a wire" to "to a wire".
- [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-… Richard Barnes
- Re: [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-l… Thomson, Martin
- Re: [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-l… Richard Barnes
- Re: [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-l… Thomson, Martin
- Re: [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-l… Thomson, Martin