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

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> 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'.
>
> I think I can agree.
>
> I'm interested in all discovery mechanisms existing out there, and then
> making some new...  But at some point one can easily wonder whether
> there aren't too many of them those discovery mechanisms, and maybe some
> more reuse can be possible.
If we can re-use something existing then that's great for me as well.
The usage of DNS based discovery is not extremely new either. The 
special case here is just to consideration of the fact that there are 
NATs out there.

>
> So can I turn your (Hannes) question: how much does your new discovery
> protocol reuse?

Actually, it is not MY discovery mechanism. I am just a long-time 
participant of the GEOPRIV working group and would like to see some 
progress. In this particular case cross-area review seemed to be an 
appropriate way to receive feedback "early" in the process.

>   Of what?  Please don't argument that that and that
> group believes the requirements eliminate all existing discovery
> mechanisms, because I'm speechless in front of these requirements
> because I haven't followed them, sorry :-)
That's a basic problem if one working group is working on a subject and 
another group or community is providing input to selected parts. I have 
some (bad) experience with these type of interactions and so far I 
learned that soliciting feedback later than earlier is causing more 
problems in the end. For some recurring problems (such as XML issues) 
there are separate review groups that provide feedback in a timely 
fashion. This case is a bit too special and there is no such group 
available.

>
> Then of course another question to you (Hannes) is whether we have any
> IPR issues around this new method of discovery, any entanglement.  If
> there's IPR, on which side would one prefer to err, and so.
There were no IPRs disclosures posted to the respective GEOPRIV documents.
Since I am not the author of the specs I don't really know.
>
> But without at least these little things one can say little, and even
> less call it 'consensus', In My Humble Oppinion.
>

Ciao
Hannes

> Alex
>
>>
>> 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
>>  [e-mail] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
> ______________________________________________________________________



_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area