Re: [Hipsec] submission of a newI-D:"Delivering Geographic Location in Host Identity Protocol (HIP)"

Suping ZHAI <zhaisuping@huawei.com> Sat, 25 October 2008 07:28 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 0E7723A689D; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
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 215393A6841 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.155
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.155 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 vo3XxvNRgQ9M for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257EF3A688C for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in [172.24.2.3]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K9A001BCA5CYY@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for hipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:29:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K9A0067MA5BRQ@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for hipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:29:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from zhaisp ([10.111.12.102]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K9A00HHTA5B86@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for hipsec@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:29:35 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:29:35 +0800
From: Suping ZHAI <zhaisuping@huawei.com>
To: Feng Cao <fcao@cisco.com>, "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>
Message-id: <0K9A00HHVA5B86@szxml04-in.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Foxmail 4.2 [cn]
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] submission of a newI-D:"Delivering Geographic Location in Host Identity Protocol (HIP)"
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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Feng,
See comment inline.
---original message---
From: fcao@cisco.com
Sent: 2008-10-23 10:57:00
Subject:RE: [Hipsec] submission of a newI-D:"Delivering Geographic Location	in Host Identity Protocol (HIP)"

>Hi Suping,
>
>LOCATOR is another option to carrying geo-location. But there are some
>drawbacks for using LOCATOR. For example, there is a need to provide
>geo-location  request, where GEOLOC_REQ is more clear and specific
>(instead of creating new  LOCATOR_REQ only for geo-location).  
>There are also some incompatible fields in LOCATOR, such as the limit of locator
>length and P-bit.
I don't think there are incompatibility issues here. It's so natural to define a new Locator Type to solve the above mentioned problem. E.g if Locator Type = GEOLOC, the following 16bits may be identified as Locator Length field.

Suping


>Additionally,  LOCATOR or location may generate
>confusion for its scope among various users, so geo-location sounds to
>be direct and clear.
>
>We stick to GEOLOC and GEOLOC_REQ for now (and are open to other
>options), unless that HIP WG reaches the consensus.
>
>Thanks,
>
>--Feng
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Suping ZHAI [mailto:zhaisuping@huawei.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:08 PM
>To: Feng Cao (fcao); hipsec@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Hipsec] submission of a new I-D:"Delivering Geographic
>Location in Host Identity Protocol (HIP)"
>
>Hi Feng,
>One comment with respect of the parameter geolocation. In the
>location-based services, the location can be identified by the LOCATOR
>which is defined in RFC5206, it can also provide the privacy and
>authentication. So what's the preference of the GEOLOCATION comparing
>with the LOCATOR?
>
>Best Regards,
>Suping
>---original message---
>From: fcao@cisco.com
>Sent: 2008-10-22 10:21:00
>Subject:[Hipsec] submission of a new I-D:"Delivering Geographic Location
>in Host Identity Protocol (HIP)"
>
>>Hi all,
>> 
>>A new I-D, draft-cao-hip-geolocation-00, was just submitted to IETF HIP
>
>>WG. Your comments are always welcome.
>> 
>>Here is the staging URL for now: 
>>http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/staging/draft-cao-hip-geolocation-00.t
>>x
>>t
>><http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/staging/draft-cao-hip-geolocation-00.
>>t
>>xt> 
>>
>>Abstract: This document defines a new parameter for delivering 
>>geographic location in Host Identity Protocol (HIP). For mobile users 
>>using HIP, one generic mechanism is proposed to share or update their
>>geo- location information with either rendezvous servers or their
>peers.
>>In addition, geo-location privacy is also protected with the help of 
>>the ENCRYPTED parameter.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>--Feng
>>_______________________________________________
>>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