Re: [Int-area] Re: Discovering a Location Server in the Access Network

Hi Joe,

Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, Hannes,
>
> I appreciate the idea of a 'ping' to the group. I also appreciate that
> everyone has their area of focus, and not all things brought to a WG
> receive the attention that's needed to move them forward.
>
>   
Agree.

> IETFers have discussed incentive systems to encourage people to read
> things that 'need to be reviewed', but let's not discuss that here.
>
>   
Certainly a complicated subject.

> Until we have that or an alternative - in the absence of positive
> feedback - items should not move forward in a WG based on silence as
> implicit approval.
>   
So far this issue is non-blocking. I just fear that this issue will 
surface again during IETF Last Call.

> If there is an absence of positive community support - either explicit,
> or implicit by the community's lack of interest and silence - IMO, the
> best path forward is to *revert* an item to individual submission, even
> if it's on the WG charter.
>   
There is another discovery mechanism, namely based on DHCP, that is 
pretty uncontroversial. I believe that it will progress quite smoothly 
in the group. Hence, the HELD specification itself would not be blocked 
since there is this other discovery mechanism. I do, however, believe 
that it is important to consider real world constraints that might slow 
down the deployment of certain mechanisms. If there is a way todo 
something about them then (in my believe) we should be looking at them.

Ciao
Hannes

> Joe
>
> Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>   
>> My mail was a new (and different) attempt to receive some feedback.
>> So far, didn't work. Just bad luck.
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>> Joe Touch wrote:
>>     
>>> Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I haven't received concerns regarding the suggested discovery approach.
>>>> May I assume from the lack of feedback that the suggested approach is
>>>> reasonable?
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> I have seen this sort of conclusion claimed before, and it is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Silence is not a hum in favor.
>>>
>>> I don't have a position on this per se, but if nobody can step forward
>>> and claim this is a reasonable solution, all we have is 'lack of
>>> feedback', not 'consensus'.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> ...
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>> In short, the current proposal (see
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery-02.txt;
>>>>> ignoring Section 2 which defines the DHCP portion) essentially does
>>>>> the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Discover the public IP address of the end point
>>>>> * Perform a reverse DNS lookup to learn the domain
>>>>> * Lookup the LIS for that domain
>>>>> * Contact the LIS
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>   
>>>       
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area