[Geopriv] Terms on this thread
"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Thu, 21 April 2005 03:44 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DOSby-00044P-Qs; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:44:18 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DOSbx-00044H-9T; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:44:17 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26827; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:44:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ind-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.104.129.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DOSnH-0001oc-Qu; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:56:01 -0400
Received: from india-core-1.cisco.com (64.104.129.221) by ind-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2005 09:22:53 +0530
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.92,118,1112553000"; d="scan'208"; a="30639291:sNHT25057180"
Received: from wells.cisco.com (wells.cisco.com [171.71.177.223]) by india-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j3L9Cqlx019249; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:12:53 GMT
Received: from jmpolk-w2k01.diablo.cisco.com (ssh-sjc-1.cisco.com [171.68.225.134]) by wells.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id UAA23738; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20050420223753.02997d48@localhost>
X-Sender: jmpolk@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:44:00 -0500
To: GEOPRIV WG <geopriv@ietf.org>, ecrit@ietf.org
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F0CB7F62D783BF40AD93882BB817F2450235862E@nvc-its-exs01.cc. telcordia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 4bb0e9e1ca9d18125bc841b2d8d77e24
Cc:
Subject: [Geopriv] Terms on this thread
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:geopriv@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
Suggesting term changes: "Location Delivery" is to the endpoint (the first time or a refresh) "Location Conveyance" is from the endpoint (to the LIS, the Proxy or to the PSAP) "Location Conveyance" is already the term/phrase used in SIP(PING) for a UA to convey its location to another UA or Proxy, per: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-location-requirements-02.txt so the term/phrase seems to be appropriate here Delivery IN Conveyance OUT both from the endpoint's point of view agreed? we can worry about non-proxy server to server lateral movement when that issue comes up At 01:03 PM 4/20/2005 -0400, Abbott, Nadine B. wrote: >Mike, >You are right--it is being used in two different contexts. >Delivery of location to the endpoint and delivery of location to the PSAP. >We need different terms or we need to qualify the term when we use it (as >above). >Nadine > >-----Original Message----- >From: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >Michael Hammer (mhammer) >Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:00 PM >To: Brian Rosen; peter_blatherwick@mitel.com >Cc: GEOPRIV WG; ecrit@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] Announcement of Joint GEOPRIV/ECRIT >InterimMeeting > > >I still get the feeling that "delivery" is being used in two different >contexts: > > (1) (2) >Local node---?---->endpoint-----/many hops/----->PSAP > ---------------------/many hops/-----> > (2) > >How can "delivery" be L2 dependent, when it must reach a PSAP many hops >away? Color me confused. > >Mike > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net] > >Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:47 AM > >To: Michael Hammer (mhammer); peter_blatherwick@mitel.com > >Cc: 'GEOPRIV WG'; ecrit@ietf.org > >Subject: RE: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] Announcement of Joint > >GEOPRIV/ECRIT InterimMeeting > > > >The idea is that, say, you are in your home, served by a DSL provider. > >The domain is then that of the DSL vendor. Your phone asks for its > >location from the server in the DSL domain. It would be given the > >location corresponding to the IP address of the request. Note that > >this would be pretty good for the requested case, even in the presence > >of a NATed local area network in your home. The phone would do this on > >boot, before any VPN tunnels were established. > > > >I get the idea that a single delivery mechanism is desirable. > >I'm skeptical we can do that because of the security issues. > >When you make the delivery mechanism L2 dependent, you can > >control the possible attacks to a finer grain than the L7 local domain. > > > >Please keep in mind that some of the folks wishing to use the > >L7 mechanism don't really want to just return location to the > >endpoint; they want to retain the location and give it out to > >authorized entities upon presentation of the IP address of the > >endpoint. That is a business decision. They can charge for > >such a service. I think the privacy implications of that are > >dicey, but the reality is that's the model that will probably > >be implemented if we do this. > > > >Brian > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Michael Hammer (mhammer) [mailto:mhammer@cisco.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:14 AM > >> To: Brian Rosen; peter_blatherwick@mitel.com > >> Cc: GEOPRIV WG; ecrit@ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] Announcement of Joint > >GEOPRIV/ECRIT > >> InterimMeeting > >> > >> Brian, > >> > >> Could you clarify the domain statement. Given nomadicity, it would > >> seem that location delivery would need to be cross-domain. The E911 > >> PSAP will not always be the same domain as the roaming endpoint. > >> > >> My impression is that Location discovery is a L2 issue, tied to the > >> fact that L2 is supposed to be a single physical hop at most between > >> the end- user terminal and an adjacent location-determining network > >> node. (Of course those trying to make L2 protocols a > >replacement for > >> IP sort of screw this assumption up.) > >> > >> The location delivery mechanism is an application-layer or > >L7 service. > >> The argument there is that since multiple applications will need to > >> rely on location information, a general purpose delivery mechanism > >> will provide consistency and generality that is so often sought in > >> IETF work. Security can be built-in to the chosen delivery > >mechanism. > >> Note, that delivery could be a choice of an existing transfer > >> mechanism. This does not preclude other L7 protocols from > >defining a > >> place in their messages that could also carry location information. > >> > >> So, I believe: > >> Location discovery is local, with associated security being local, > >> Location delivery is global, with associated security being global. > >> > >> The real issues are making those happen. > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] On > >> >Behalf Of Brian Rosen > >> >Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:54 AM > >> >To: peter_blatherwick@mitel.com > >> >Cc: 'GEOPRIV WG'; ecrit@ietf.org > >> >Subject: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] Announcement of Joint GEOPRIV/ECRIT > >> >InterimMeeting > >> > > >> >There turns out to be a large set of issues around this problem, > >> >which I fear is leading to Balkanization. There are two really > >> >important problems we need to solve. > >> > > >> >One fundamental problem is that every client needs to > >implement every > >> >possible LI transfer mechanism that its environment could provide. > >> > > >> >We have DHCP. You guys are working on LLDP-MED. The DSL > >> >guys reject both > >> >of these and want a something else. Every phone has to implement > >> >every protocol. > >> > > >> >There are some who have observed that the mechanisms at hand are L2 > >> >specific. They claim as long as you have an L2 specific mechanism, > >> >you need one or more for each L2. To get out of that, they propose > >> >that we use an L7 mechanism (think some version of HTTP, although > >> >that might not fly). They would say, lets do that once, > >and every L2 > >> >can use it. The problem is that you then have to deal with the > >> >security issues of an L7 mechanism, and in particular, you have to > >> >use IP address as the "key" for what location to return. > >If you can > >> >spoof IP address, you can get someone else's location. > >> > > >> >Those advocating L7 mechanisms claim that the mechanism > >would only be > >> >implemented within a domain, and the domain would have to take > >> >anti-spoofing steps. They note that the mechanism would need at > >> >least a complete round trip, and probably more than one, so > >spoofing > >> >requires the ability to > >> >intercept packets not addressed to the attacker. The > >> >returned data could > >> >be precisely a PIDF-LO. > >> > > >> >Then on top of that, we turn out to need some more security, > >> >especially for emergency calls. We need to prevent forged > >locations. > >> >That means we need to sign the PIDF-LO. If you get location via > >> >DHCP, or LLDP-MED, and the endpoint constructs a PIDF-LO from that, > >> >how do we construct a signature from the entity that actually > >> >determined location? > >> > > >> >Brian > >> > > >> > > >> >________________________________________ > >> >From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On > >> >Behalf Of peter_blatherwick@mitel.com > >> >Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:30 AM > >> >To: Andrew Newton > >> >Cc: GEOPRIV WG; ecrit@ietf.org > >> >Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Announcement of Joint GEOPRIV/ECRIT Interim > >> >Meeting > >> > > >> > > >> >Hi Andrew, lists, > >> > > >> >I'd like to better understand the meaning of the following agenda > >> >items: > >> > " > >> > 2) Properties of network elements in transferring LI from layer 2 > >> > upward to PIDF-LO. > >> > 3) Proposed enhancements to PIDF-LO to support #2. > >> > " > >> > > >> >Is there a summary of what these really mean, or examples > >of what the > >> >outcome could be in terms of protocol or layer interactions? > >> > > >> >Reason I'm asking is I am deeply involved in a layer 2 > >approach which > >> >would be able to deliver location information to endpoints from the > >> >L2 LAN infrastructure they are connected to. The work is > >going on in > >> >TIA and is called Link Layer Discovery Protocol - Media Endpoint > >> >Discovery (LLDP-MED), which is an extension of IEEE > >802.1AB, specific > >> >to VoIP systems. In LLDP-MED, among several other things, we have > >> >specified ways to pass equivalent data to the DHCP coordinate-based > >> >LCI (RFC 3825) and civic location LCI > >> >(draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-05, in Last Call process I > >believe). > >> >We see this method of delivery as a non-competing > >alternative to the > >> >DHCP-based approach, with the same end result to the overall ECS > >> >system (the endpoint receives the exact same data), which has some > >> >advantages particularly in enterprise deployment scenarios. (The > >> >DHCP-based method has advantages in different scenarios.) I am > >> >Editor of thi s document, and it is now in ballot process in TIA > >> >(more or less equivalent to Last Call in IETF). > >> > > >> >Sorry, I expect I am suffering lack of context here, since I only > >> >joined the list relatively recently. > >> > > >> >BTW, what is the state of geopriv-dhcp-civil? Is it now past Last > >> >Call and in the RFC Editor's queue? It seemed to have been settled > >> >on the list, and waiting on AD action. > >> > > >> >-- Peter Blatherwick > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> > >> >Sent by: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org > >> >13.04.05 16:34 > >> > > >> > To: GEOPRIV WG <geopriv@ietf.org> > >> > cc: > >> > Subject: [Geopriv] Announcement of Joint > >GEOPRIV/ECRIT > >> >Interim Meeting > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >The GEOPRIV and ECRIT working groups will be holding a > >joint interim > >> >meeting. > >> > > >> > What: Interim GEOPRIV/ECRIT meeting > >> > When: 2005 May 16 08:30-17:30 > >> > 2005 May 17 08:30-17:30 > >> > 2005 May 18 08:30-17:30 > >> > Where: Columbia University > >> > Dept. of Computer Science > >> > 450 Computer Science Bldg. > >> > 1214 Amsterdam Avenue (close to 120th St.) > >> > New York, NY 10027 > >> >Directions: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/directions.html > >> > Also: WiFi provided. > >> > Teleconference to be provided. > >> > Hotel: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/etc/hotels.html > >> > Early bookings recommended. > >> > > >> >Proposed GEOPRIV Agenda: > >> > 2005 May 16 08:30-17:30, 2005 May 17 08:30-12:30 > >> >1) Role of HTTP as a transfer protocol for PIDF-LO vs. the > >use of LI > >> >in HTTP/HTML for web browsing. > >> >2) Properties of network elements in transferring LI from layer 2 > >> >upward to PIDF-LO. > >> >3) Proposed enhancements to PIDF-LO to support #2. > >> > > >> >Proposed ECRIT Agenda: > >> > 2005 May 17 13:30-17:30, 2005 May 18 08:30-17:30 > >> >1) Emergency Call Routing Requirements > >> >2) Security and Threats Analysis > >> > > >> >_______________________________________________ > >> >Geopriv mailing list > >> >Geopriv@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >_______________________________________________ > >> >Ecrit mailing list > >> >Ecrit@ietf.org > >> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit > >> > > >> > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ecrit mailing list >Ecrit@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit > >_______________________________________________ >Geopriv mailing list >Geopriv@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv cheers, James ******************* Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented _______________________________________________ Geopriv mailing list Geopriv@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
- [Geopriv] Terms on this thread James M. Polk
- RE: [Geopriv] Terms on this thread Abbott, Nadine B.