Re: [Geopriv] AD review: draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-11
"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Mon, 03 October 2011 18:14 UTC
Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7698221F8D24 for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.26
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.661, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XtWN023LaiLR for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C89521F8CE4 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; l=8546; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317665828; x=1318875428; h=message-id:date:to:from:subject:cc:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=snUKUbbI4noBTaa9XkTUp3bqagtZQj6Q0Xyv5JVmRxs=; b=ElFsdakhoTE/nO0JpRGQp3yWqc1LqtrRD0BVuUP+5mwTYgFjsgSl5Wyk gJqzPFU66+c6mq1/ZPg5FLP0aNOhj3z4ZRy7QWtwjOzeh7/1bOLeghAUC py1AkSPJ75LXChN/Q6FVxnZP/WQWcMvDGmujVAAeHPC1V9jqYjd4fBNfQ c=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,480,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="5683848"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2011 18:17:08 +0000
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8717.cisco.com [10.99.80.24]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p93IH73O023481; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:17:07 GMT
Message-Id: <201110031817.p93IH73O023481@mtv-core-4.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:17:06 -0500
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9482FCE0-55AD-4828-93C8-C626B1750F38@nostrum.com>
References: <05398170-17BE-4A89-95A0-8850C5A8026C@nostrum.com> <201109150318.p8F3IgxP005025@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <9482FCE0-55AD-4828-93C8-C626B1750F38@nostrum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] AD review: draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-11
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:14:06 -0000
Robert At 03:09 PM 9/22/2011, Robert Sparks wrote: >Hi James - Sorry for taking a few extra days to respond - responses inline. > >Why aren't we copying the list here? sorry >Unless there's a reason not to, would you add it to your next response? done >On Sep 14, 2011, at 10:18 PM, James M. Polk wrote: > > > At 02:40 PM 5/31/2011, Robert Sparks wrote: > >> Summary: There are a few issues to address with a revised ID > before moving to IETF LC > >> > >> 1) The definition of the LocationURI format in section 2.3 says > that the definition > >> of each LuriType field value will define the unit of measurement > for the LuriLength > >> field. The two LuriTypes defined in this document don't provide > that definition. > > > > clarified the URI is in bytes, and Valid-for is in seconds. > > > > > >> 2) It's not clear if a response containing a LuriType=2 frame, > but no LuriType=1 frame > >> is valid, and what a client should do if it recieves one. > > > > the second to last paragraph in Section 2.3 is > > > > The Valid-For (LuriType=2) is not mandated for use by this document. > > However, its presence MUST NOT cause any error in handling the > > location URI (i.e., if not understood, it MUST be ignored). > > > > Do you want more to it that this, or this to be rewritten because > it is unclear? > > > > I could state that the Valid-for (LuriType=2) is OPTIONAL, or > even 'SHOULD be there', for instance. > >I don't think you understood my question. nope, I missed your meaning. >Is it valid to get a response that has an LuriType 2 frame, but NOT >a LuriType1 frame? >I don't see how the text you quote or propose answers that - am I >missing something? I added The Valid-For (LuriType=2) offers no meaningful information without an accompanying Location URI (LuriType=1), therefore a Valid-For (LuriType=2) MUST NOT be sent without a Location URI (LuriType=1). Does this cover what you had in mind? > > > > > >> 3) The registration policy of section 4.3 is not clear. Are you > aiming for one of the > >> well-known policies in section 4.1 of RFC 5226? > > > > see point #4 below > > > > > >> 4) That said, why is the registry in section 4.3 necessary at > all? Prose in the RFC, rather > >> than a registry, is going to be more useful to the implementer - > the approach that > >> sipcore-location-conveyance takes just under the BNF for > Geolocation-header in section > >> 4.1 of that document would work here just as well. > > > > I deleted the IANA registration in Section 4.3, and changed > Section 3.3 to include the following paragraph to bring this > document more in line with Location Conveyance: > > > > It is RECOMMENDED that implementers follow what is in ID-SIP-LOC > > [ID-SIP-LOC] as guidance regarding which Location URI schemes to > > provide in DHCP. That document discusses what a receiving entity > > does when receiving a URI scheme that is not understood. Awareness > > to the two URI types there is important for conveying location, if > > SIP is used to convey a Location URI provided by DHCP. > > > > Let me know if this is ok... > > >[ID-SIP-LOC] would need to become a normative reference. And I think >you point specifically to section 4.3. already moved >It might be easier to copy by value instead of by reference. not sure I understand this what you're getting at with this last line (though it is a Monday and I'm a bit slow ;-) > > > >> 5) Should the refresh recommendation in section 2.3 include some > randomization? Without it, > >> do we have all of the elements that got their location URI from > this option at the same > >> time during an avalance-restart attempting to refresh at the same time? > > > > I added this to the end of the 3rd to last paragraph: > > > > However, if every client on a network > > were to attempt a refresh at the same time, say if power when out > > and was brought back up at the same time, there would be an > > avalanche of location requests or transmissions. This can be avoided > > by varying the timers between the nodes on the same network. This > > can be a good reason for not giving out the same Valid-for timer > > (amount) with each Location URI sent. > > > > Let me know if this is ok... >yes cool > > > > > >> 6) I can't parse the sentence in 2.3 that starts "A Location URI > refresh SHOULD be done during > >> the normal DHCP refresh rate,...". In particular, extracting the > expected normative behavior > >> out of that sentence is difficult. Here's an attempt at a > rewrite - does it say what was > >> intended?: > >> > >> A client will update is Location URI either as part of the > normal DHCP lease renewal, or > >> through a renewal request sent due to the Valid-For timer > reaching the value described > >> in this document. Note that in the second case, the request > could ask only for the LocationURI > >> option. > > > > yeah - it says the same thing. But if you're happier with the > above, I am too (so I copied it into the doc). > > > > ;-) > > > > > >> 7) In section 3.2's first bullet, why is this a SHOULD NOT and > not a MUST NOT? > > > > changed > > > >> Would it be > >> better if the sentence said "be automatically sent" rather than "be sent"? > > > > err, the word "automatically" isn't in this document, so I'm at a > loss to know what you want changed here. >I was suggesting _adding_ the word automatically. ah, missed that too -- fixed now. > > > >> Similarly, why > >> is the SHOULD NOT in the second bullet not a MUST NOT? > > > > changed > > > > > >> 8) Why does section 3.3 rule out the use of XMPP with pres: URIs? > > > > huh... don't know...? What's the RFC I should point at for this? > Is it 5122? > > >3922 I think, but I'll double check with SIMPLE/XMPP. this is covered in a separate message that I'll send 1 minute after I send this one. > > > >> It looks like -03 was the last version of this document reviewed > by DHC. I'm requesting > >> an updated review. > > > > ok >I don't think I've received this yet - I repolled for it today. ack Based on the above, I'll finalize the mods and submit the new rev for IESG consideration. James > > > > > >> Nits: > >> > >> * The one-sentence Abstract needs editing. Currently it talks > about "a client's URI of a client". > >> Please simplify the structure. Breaking it into multiple > sentences would help. > > > > fixed > > > > > >> * First paragraph of the introduction: Suggest s/associated > by/associated with/ > > > > fixed > > > > > >> * In section 3, instead of "location URIs such as <...> are to > be done, ... rather than <...>" > >> I suggest "For example, creating a location URI such as > <sips:...> is better than a location > >> URI such as <sips:aliceisat...>. The username portion of the > first example URI provides no > >> direct identiy information." > > > > fixed > > > > > >> * In section 3, I suggest either deleting the sentence that > starts "The entity= discussion", > >> or replacing it with something like "The considerations for > populating the entity attribute > >> value in a PIDF-LO document are independent from the > considerations for avoiding exposing > >> identification information in the username part of a location URI." > > > > replaced (as I still think this is an important point to make). > > > > > >> * The end of Section 3.3 points forward to section 4.2, but it > should point to 4.3 if we keep > >> that registry. > > > > both're gone (the 'forward pointer' and the URI Schemes registry > that was in section 4.3) > > > > > >> * I suggest deleting the sentence that starts "Penetrating an LS > is supposed to be hard". Its > >> a good sentiment, but it's captured in the documents that define > an LS, and it doesn't help > >> the implementer of this document. > > > > done > > > > I'll hope off submitting this version until I hear back from one > of you about my larger editorial inclusions above (to points #4 and > #5 above). The doc is done if nothing more is asked for (save for > DHC getting their greedy hands on it and having a problem ;-) > > > > James > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Geopriv mailing list > >> Geopriv@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > >
- [Geopriv] AD review: draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Geopriv] AD review: draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-… James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] AD review: draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-… James M. Polk