RE: [Geopriv] Message Flow

"Brian Rosen" <br@brianrosen.net> Sun, 25 November 2007 03:00 UTC

Return-path: <geopriv-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iw7jm-0001K4-SR; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:00:50 -0500
Received: from geopriv by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Iw7jl-0001Ha-RG for geopriv-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:00:49 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iw7jl-0001HQ-GD for geopriv@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:00:49 -0500
Received: from ebru.winwebhosting.com ([74.52.236.50]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iw7jh-0005e8-D9 for geopriv@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:00:48 -0500
Received: from [209.173.53.233] (helo=BROSLT41xp) by ebru.winwebhosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <br@brianrosen.net>) id 1Iw7jG-0007u3-Hk; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:00:20 -0600
From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
To: "'Winterbottom, James'" <James.Winterbottom@andrew.com>, 'Hannes Tschofenig' <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
References: <00a301c82c8d$e4f2afe0$2f0d0d0a@cisco.com><4744B466.8010507@gmx.net><XFE-SJC-212t8zPdqJL000013da@xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com><4745449B.90400@gmx.net><081401c82d82$d6bedc50$640fa8c0@cis.neustar.com><474685A9.3040105@gmx.net><08bb01c82df6$0567e9c0$640fa8c0@cis.neustar.com><47471A6D.5040202@gmx.net> <092101c82e2f$84c0fd40$640fa8c0@cis.neustar.com> <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF103A3F33D@AHQEX1.andrew.com>
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Message Flow
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:00:18 -0500
Message-ID: <0ace01c82f0f$52581ba0$640fa8c0@cis.neustar.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: Acgt/dTJTjuN7xd1QAyfqKhdJumwcgAMPGqwAAkxvCAALtuhAA==
In-Reply-To: <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF103A3F33D@AHQEX1.andrew.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ebru.winwebhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - brianrosen.net
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135
Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
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>
Errors-To: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org

But that wouldn't let the recipient get updated location, right?  So it
wouldn't generally be useful.  To be useful, it would have to have both a
snapshot and a "regular" reference, send both and mark them appropriately.

The context draft doesn't match the syntax of -conveyance, which means we
have information loss from the proxy to the recipient.  That means "mark
them appropriately" is hard.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom@andrew.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 11:38 PM
> To: Brian Rosen; Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Message Flow
> 
> Brian,
> 
> Inline.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2007 11:18 AM
> > To: 'Hannes Tschofenig'
> > Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Message Flow
> >
> > > >> There is obviously a difference between the end host doing the
> job
> > and
> > > >> the proxy doing it. There is no difference between the two
> > approaches.
> > > >>
> > > > I'm pointing out a difference between them.  In the endpoint
> route,
> > the
> > > PSAP
> > > > knows the location used for routing.  In the proxy case, it
> doesn't.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well. That's not entirely correct if you consider the context draft
> in
> > > addition. It allows you to indicate to what the reference points.
> > > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-
> > context-
> > > 01.txt
> > No, that is not sufficient.  The PSAP (or any location recipient)
> can't do
> > anything that would get it the location the proxy got.
> >
> [AJW] This is not true. The proxy can request a snapshot location which
> means that the reference will always point to the same location.
> 
> >
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------
> 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://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv