RE: Re: US patent on an IPv6 geolocation header extension

> I think it does raise the question of whether i this information is better in an application rather than the network layer.

We have already been down this path – see the list archives.

Fred

From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Smith
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 12:17 PM
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Fwd: Re: US patent on an IPv6 geolocation header extension

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Mark Smith" <markzzzsmith@gmail.com<mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com>>
Date: 19 Jan. 2018 07:14
Subject: Re: US patent on an IPv6 geolocation header extension
To: "joel jaeggli" <joelja@bogus.com<mailto:joelja@bogus.com>>
Cc:

On 19 Jan. 2018 06:52, "joel jaeggli" <joelja@bogus.com<mailto:joelja@bogus.com>> wrote:

On 1/18/18 11:04 AM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Mark Smith
>
>> Here's some prior art from 2013.
>>
>> "Enhancing Location Based IP Services"
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-add-location-to-ipv6-header-01
> I thought that rang a bell (reminded me of something). Wasn't there some who disliked the idea intensely, just because it disclosed geo location without the use being aware as the user might be, if that feature was in an app? I seem to remember some acrimony involved.
If you add this sort of thing at an intermediate hop, you have all of
the attendant problems of unstated or lack of consent that go along with
adding host identifiers of any kind (we largely have IETF consensus not
to work on host-identiers). If you add it only on the endpoint, consent
can be achieved in various ways. Protecting that information from
mid-point observers is an important consideration that would tend to
preclude embedding it for use by the network or transport layers.

Applications have no problems reporting to each other where they are
without recourse to lower-layer signaling.

+1

I think it does raise the question of whether i this information is better in an application rather than the network layer.

If conveyed within non-specific applications is not reliable or universal enough, than a specific geolocation conveying application would be the alternative that doesn't require a new EH. Whether to run the app or not is expressing the geolocation privacy choice.

Devices that are required to run it, e.g. corporate devices, will have that enforced by the device administrators preventing device end-users from disabling it.

Regards,
Mark.

> Bert
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>