Re: [Geopriv] [geopriv] #38: Section 1

[Marc Linsner <[e-mail]>]

On the security issue Hannes raised, I'm OK with the current statement in
Section 3 and don't believe anything more is warranted:

"
   Since there is no privacy protection for DHCP messages, an
   eavesdropper who can monitor the link between the DHCP server and
   requesting client can discover this LCI.
"

As I/others have stated, confidentiality of DHCP messages on a modern wired
networks is inherent in the design or at layer 2.  The applicability for
DHCP to hand out device-level location information on mobile networks is
simply not feasible or practical, hence implementers understand the
limitations of this mechanism.

-Marc-

On 8/10/10 5:10 PM, "geopriv issue tracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> #38: Section 
> 1
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
> 
 Reporter:  bernard_aboba@Š               |       Owner:  bernard_aboba@Š
> 
     Type:  defect                        |      Status:  new
> 
 Priority:  minor                         |   Milestone:
> draft-ietf-geopriv-3825bis
Component:  rfc3825bis                    |
> Version:  1.0                       
 Severity:  Waiting for Shepherd Writeup
> |    Keywords:   
> 
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------

> Marc Linsner said:

 "Further, RFC3825 includes:

 "  Wireless hosts can
> utilize this option to gain knowledge of the
    location of the radio access
> point used during host configuration,
    but would need some more exotic
> mechanisms, maybe GPS, or maybe a
    future DHCP option, which includes a
> list of geo-locations like that
    defined here, containing the locations of
> the radio access points
    that are close to the client"

 Since
> draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis is updating RFC3825, it takes strong
 consensus
> to add/remove text from RFC3825.  Since this text is missing
 from

> draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis, one has to assume the wg agreed to taking
 it

> out.

 You might want to go back and figure out why this text was removed and

> suggest that it's put back in, or modified and put back in."

 [BA] It appears
> that the text in question was removed in -02, as part of
 the merger of
> Sections 1 and 1.2, covered by Ticket #20.  The proposed
 merger was discussed
> on the list in September 2009 (see

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg07895.html ).

 In
> addition to the text that was removed, some text from

> draft-thomson-geopriv-3825bis was edited into Section 1:

    The options
> defined in this document have limited applicability for
    mobile hosts.
> Typically DHCP clients refresh their configuration in
    response to changes
> in interface state or pending lease expirations.
    As a result, when a
> mobile host changes location without subsequently
    completing another DHCP
> exchange, location configuration information
    initially obtained via DHCP
> could become outdated.

 [BA] By replacing the text on wireless usage with a
> statement of
 applicability relating to mobile uses, the overall impression
> that
 Section 1 leaves is a focus on wired uses.

-- 
Ticket URL:
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/38>
geopriv
> <http://tools.ietf.org/geopriv/>

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