Re: [Geopriv] Periodic location draft initial comments
"Mary Barnes" <mary.barnes@nortel.com> Mon, 17 November 2008 18:35 UTC
Return-Path: <geopriv-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: geopriv-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-geopriv-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8736C3A6A01; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:35:50 -0800 (PST)
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 DD24E3A6996 for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:35:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.501, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 esl0YhJxOM83 for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:35:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zcars04f.nortel.com (zcars04f.nortel.com [47.129.242.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99DE73A6A01 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:35:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.72]) by zcars04f.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id mAHIZhd15653; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:35:44 GMT
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:32:10 -0600
Message-ID: <F66D7286825402429571678A16C2F5EE064ED539@zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF105116747@AHQEX1.andrew.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Periodic location draft initial comments
Thread-Index: AclAdiDjewVwNNQrTlynYvyFMskptwIYGlQw
References: <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF105116747@AHQEX1.andrew.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.barnes@nortel.com>
To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
Cc: GEOPRIV <geopriv@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Periodic location draft initial comments
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Martin, I appreciate the comments. Responses are embedded below [MB]. Thanks, Mary. -----Original Message----- From: Thomson, Martin [mailto:Martin.Thomson@andrew.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:14 PM To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00) Cc: GEOPRIV Subject: Periodic location draft initial comments Hi Mary, This is an interesting, and useful, draft that seems to pull a large number of things together quite well. I've read the draft through and I'll save the in-depth comments for when I've had more time to think about the problem, but I do have a few minor things. There doesn't seem to be anything that discusses how measurements can be acquired in batches. Our experience with radio measurements is that taking multiple measurements over a certain period is useful. Some discussion of how this might be done would be useful. One option that doesn't require any mechanism (in this draft) is to overload the measurement definition to include multiplicity. However, that doesn't really fit with the definitions in the measurements draft. My preference is to add options to the measurement request so that measurement acquisition can be batched somehow. This probably needs more thought though. [MB] Yes, this seems to make sense. It was not one of the WiMAX requirements AFAIK, but would seem to be something useful for them as well. [/MB] Regarding: For Devices that are made aware of location changes, the location change can be a trigger for the device to send another locationRequest message. Strictly speaking, a device that is aware of location changes doesn't need a LIS. I'd suggest rewording this to place the emphasis on changes in measurements: Devices that are able to take location-related measurements, might be able to use changes in measurement results to detect a potential change in location. Changes in measurement data can be used as a trigger to make a location request. [MB] This makes sense and I'll feed the suggestion back to WiMAX folks. [/MB] I struggled with section 5.1. Partly, this is because I don't agree that linking the expiration of a location URI with periodic requests for measurements is the right thing to do. This runs the risk of having the location URI expire too quickly to be of use to anyone. I really think that adding a separate protocol parameter is the right way to do this. Also, while the draft talks about the device driving the periodicity, it doesn't actually attribute any intelligence to the device for the decision to make a periodic request, which seems to me to be a little backwards. I'm probably not aware of all the context, so any pointers would help. [MB] I agree that it likely is far better to define a parameter for this and that using the expiry likely isn't optimal - the original intent was to support the periodicity on the Device side without any protocol changes. But, if we can get agreement on making changes that optimize the solution, that would certainly be better. [/MB] (Not really a comment with this draft, but an observation in general.) We (GEOPRIV) probably need to discuss the role of the LCP and the role of presence in our architecture. It's use cases like this that expose how unclear that delineation is. General nit: In text, I prefer "location URI" and "location request" to "locationURI" and "locationRequest"; English is nicer. [MB] Okay. [/MB] ...and congratulations: This draft actually managed to break the tools HTML parser in its reference to the capabilities draft despite being perfectly normal. Regards, Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------ [mf2] _______________________________________________ Geopriv mailing list Geopriv@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
- [Geopriv] Periodic location draft initial comments Thomson, Martin
- Re: [Geopriv] Periodic location draft initial com… Mary Barnes