Re: [Hipsec] Comments on draft-cao-hip-geolocation

"Hui Deng" <denghui02@gmail.com> Tue, 18 November 2008 03:37 UTC

Return-Path: <hipsec-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: hip-archive@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-hip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4643A6828; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:37:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4982E3A6828 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:37:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 mDFGP6huGoMz for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:37:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5C53A67E1 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:37:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 9so1083683eyd.31 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:37:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=YDwUuLmU1U1JO1DOZfK+Z8CUKrfVtf8vOWX9ZIu2qQ4=; b=Tokgztki+izwk8Pop/2+uycrHJV64M3wvQAECXV+lZhm+kGUbee+kHa0ydntf6uY1I tP5pN2vyDPF6j98Cm+PCQrZtToPqSS2AeDQGCw1RG5ZAjJigx1beoIgnFZl6OBUVOjP3 o4RQBPZRkLkKLNYR9JYRGqr0d+WabxB7qNNfE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=fXinnKeooxt/OfMhAwlIOPjX1k+2+qvdrJNc9Li69vKQ7G0EfhGDmpl8YAEt0jWHpW B5HYMSTM7L+rUWdpFQxup7gujvcjsUK3tSLWUirC5k9g++wi1tDxhNVm2pl5DC8es99G J0TRMMyNio+VZbq6uNz8EaGPp1KV+4Om6r9zg=
Received: by 10.210.30.1 with SMTP id d1mr4587006ebd.2.1226979430362; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.210.109.14 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1d38a3350811171937l5774a3adlb3f8d3ce2e3af82@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:37:10 +0800
From: "Hui Deng" <denghui02@gmail.com>
To: "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <016c01c948da$279c60c0$6612a20a@nsnintra.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <AB6DC025-4872-412B-98E7-A3AE0E84404F@cisco.com> <1d38a3350811171724m6a7f2f84la1b47dcf2ac5b5c5@mail.gmail.com> <016c01c948da$279c60c0$6612a20a@nsnintra.net>
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, Hui Deng <denghui@chinamobile.com>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Comments on draft-cao-hip-geolocation
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/hipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1413367792=="
Sender: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi, Hannes,

Please help to explain any issue with that, other than like this.

Thanks

-Hui

2008/11/18 Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>

> I believe that conveying location in HIP is a misguided approach.
> Wrong layer!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>        From: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Hui Deng
>        Sent: 18 November, 2008 03:25
>        To: Cullen Jennings; Hui Deng
>        Cc: HIP
>        Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Comments on draft-cao-hip-geolocation
>
>
>        Hi, Cullen,
>
>        Thanks for your comments,
>
>        It could be understand from another direction, if the mobile users
> use HIP. Here are some reasons listed below.
>
>        -- HIP has the  security mechanisms (i.e. ENCRYPTED)
>        -- GEOPRIV security framework can be integrated into HIP call flow
>        -- the geo-location changes of mobile user may not be cared or
> covered by many applications.
>        -- delivering geo-location in HIP can provide the generic mechanism
> and interface for the up-layer applications;
>        -- delivering geo-location in HIP can greatly reduce the redundant
> work for up-layer applications.
>
>        Basically, operator sometime prefer use infrastructure layer to
> transmit this information.
>
>        thanks for your understanding.
>        Best regards,
>
>        -Hui Deng
>
>        2008/11/15 Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
>
>
>
>                Due to the requirements of managing the privacy of geo and
> civil location information, I think this type of information is much better
> transfered at an application layer than at the transport layer.
>
>                Cullen in my individual contributor role
>
>                _______________________________________________
>                Hipsec mailing list
>                Hipsec@ietf.org
>                https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec