Re: [Geopriv] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-geopriv-arch-00.txt

["Brian Rosen" <[e-mail]>]

Generally, we call things that deliver location values as well as URIs to be
LISses.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:23 AM
> To: James M. Polk; [e-mail]
> Cc: GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-geopriv-arch-00.txt
> 
> I was asking about other docs because the conception of what a LIS is
> has to come from somewhere, and I wanted to know what comes to
> people's minds when they think of it. Deref was useful in that respect.
> 
> On the LIS point, a simple way to solve this could be to define LIS as
> follows (unless there's another document out there that directly
> contradicts this definition), in 3.2.3 of geopriv-arch:
> 
> "A LIS provides location URIs to LRs."
> 
> And then the discussion of the LIS in 3.2.2 could be taken out.
> 
> This doesn't address the issue of dereferencing, but does it get the
> job done on defining a LIS?
> 
> Alissa
> 
> On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:11 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
> 
> > At 01:53 PM 7/14/2009, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> >> James, Ray,
> >>
> >> The last time we were discussing lo-sec, it was obvious that some
> >> clarity was needed about a single entity performing multiple Geopriv
> >> roles.
> >
> > I agree that a single entity can perform multiple roles - but that's
> > the opposite of what you're suggesting here; as you're changing the
> > same function and definition of the entity based on who's asking for
> > the same information -- which is what I object to.
> >
> >> Throughout the new version of the document, we've tried to make
> >> that clear, both by stating it explicitly ("It is not uncommon for
> >> the
> >> same entity to perform both the LG and LS roles, or both the LR and
> >> LS
> >> roles." in section 2), and by consistently referring to "the entity
> >> acting as L_" or the "the entity performing the role of L_".
> >
> > again - that's the opposite of what's happening here.
> >
> > What you are saying is that a LIS is the dereference server and
> > destination of a location URI from the target *only*.
> >
> > If a 3rd party wants that same target's PIDF-LO using the _same_
> > location URI it is no longer contacting the LIS, it is contacting a
> > Location Server.
> >
> > This is nuts.
> >
> > LISs should be used for 1 purpose, as should Location Servers.
> >
> > A LIS should be used to provide LI to a Target via an LCP.
> >
> > Location Servers are location inserters (i.e., the SIP UA or Proxy
> > that inserts location into the SIP request).
> >
> > We need to have another singular purpose term defined as the
> > destination of the location URI, call it a Dereference Server (DS)
> > which provides PIDF-LOs from Location Recipients that were given a
> > location URI from or of a target.
> >
> > This means everything is clearly singular in
> >
> >
> >> This holds true for LIS as much as any other Geopriv role. Nothing
> >> prevents an entity acting as a LIS from also acting as an LS.
> Perhaps
> >> my one-sentence description was more confusing/objectionable than
> the
> >> text itself. From section 3.2.2:
> >>
> >>> Some performing the Location Generator role are designed only to
> >>> provide Targets with their own locations (as opposed to
> distributing
> >>> a Target's location to others). The process of providing a Target
> >>> with its own location is known within Geopriv as Location
> >>> Configuration, and the LG that provides such location is often
> >>> described as a Location Information Server (LIS). Protocols used
> >>> exclusively to communicate location from a LIS to a Target are
> known
> >>> as Location Configuration Protocols [8]. Several such protocols
> have
> >>> been developed within Geopriv [9][10][11][12].
> >>> By definition, a LIS needs only to follow a simple privacy-
> >>> preserving policy: transmit a Target's location only to the Target
> >>> itself. This is known as the "LCP policy."
> >>> Importantly, if an LS is also serving in the role of LG and it has
> >>> not been provisioned with Privacy Rules for a particular Target, it
> >>> MUST follow the LCP policy, whether it is a LIS or not. In the
> >>> positioning phase, an entity serving the roles of both LG and LS
> >>> that has not received Privacy Rules must follow this policy. The
> >>> same is true for any LS in the distribution phase.
> >
> >> The notion of a LIS in the role that provides a Target with its own
> >> location seems to be supported in the rest of our existing geopriv
> >> documents (lis-discovery, lbyr-requirements, held, l7-lcp-ps).
> >
> > "...the rest of our existing geopriv documents..."
> >
> > These are all HELD originated and HELD only documents.  Surely
> > Geopriv has produced more documents that just about HELD, hasn't it?
> >
> > If so, then this quote isn't so accurate, is it?
> >
> > BTW - which of these documents define how HELD returns a PIDF-LO in
> > a response?
> >
> >> Can you  provide references that instead point to LIS as a
> >> dereference server
> >> that responds to any LR's request?
> >
> > Can you?
> >
> > A LIS has always been our least defined entity.
> >
> > As suggested above, why get into a discussion about an acronym (LIS)
> > that does a function that accurately describes what we're talking
> > about just fine (i.e., Dereference Server (DS)).
> >
> > This would solve all our problems and minimize or eliminate
> > everyone's confusion.
> >
> >> Also, we will get authors/acknowledgements squared away in a
> >> subsequent draft.
> >
> > yeah -- and the 2 chairs are part of that author team... so who's
> > running this document (as a matter of process)?
> >
> >> Alissa
> >> On Jul 14, 2009, at 4:35 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> > >* Location configuration is called out explicitly. LIS is
> defined
> >>> as a
> >>> > >special case of LG that only provides a Target with its own
> >>> location.
> >>> >
> >>> > err, this is yet another definition change in the grand scheme of
> >>> Geopriv...
> >>> >
> >>> > so, a LIS is an LCP server, and what is the destination of
> >>> > subscriptions for dereferences - but only by the target itself,
> >>> not
> >>> > dereferences by other entities?
> >>>
> >>> I'm not happy with this either.
> >>>
> >>> What are the motives for this change?  It seems to me that
> >>> generically a "LIS" is widely taken to mean anything that
> implements
> >>> HELD (or similar?) regardless of who is requesting the location and
> >>> to restrict the terminology now seems rather odd.
> >>>
> >>> Ray
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET
> >>> Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet
> >>> e: [e-mail], t: [phone]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Geopriv mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv