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

James,

Version -00 (or -01) of this document, which was the combined result of work from JamesW, Henning, Hannes and myself was accepted.  Since then, the WG item was blocked (I don't know why) and we've had a few more revisions.

This is on the tools page and -03 is the current and active version.  I don't see why there would be a problem.  It's not old, it's just that we've not needed to update it.

--Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Thursday, 16 July 2009 2:25 PM
> To: Winterbottom, James; Alissa Cooper; Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk
> Cc: GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-geopriv-arch-00.txt
> 
> At 04:59 PM 7/14/2009, Winterbottom, James wrote:
> >Hi Alissa,
> >
> >Please take a look at
> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-deref-protocol-
> 03
> >that was accepted as a working group item in March of last year.
> 
> this is 16 months old and there isn't an updated version on the tools
> page for geopriv?
> 
> how are we wg members supposed to keep up with docs that are this old?
> 
> 
> >This document is all about a LIS also providing a dereference
> >service for location URIs.
> 
> so a HELD doc (that's this old) defines how a general Geopriv entity
> is to be defined.
> 
> ummmm-k
> 
> 
> >Cheers
> >James
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Alissa Cooper
> >Sent: Tue 7/14/2009 1:53 PM
> >To: Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk; James M. Polk
> >Cc: GEOPRIV
> >Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Fwd:  I-D Action:draft-ietf-geopriv-arch-00.txt
> >
> >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. 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_".
> >
> >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). Can you
> >provide references that instead point to LIS as a dereference server
> >that responds to any LR's request?
> >Also, we will get authors/acknowledgements squared away in a
> >subsequent draft.
> >Alissa
> >On Jul 14, 2009, at 4:35 AM, Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk 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: ray@nominet.org.uk, t: +44 1865 332211
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Geopriv mailing list
> > > Geopriv@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Geopriv mailing list
> >Geopriv@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------
> >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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]