Re: [netext] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-netext-ani-location-08: (with DISCUSS)

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Thu, 19 March 2015 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A94E1A6FF8; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tt0ng1YHZyLD; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBDEC1A7002; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6597880E1; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Brians-MacBook-Pro.local (swifi-nat.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C663136830E; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <550B0554.3010404@innovationslab.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:20:20 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
References: <20150305023225.22812.66108.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D11DECAB.1D878%rpazhyan@cisco.com> <D12D0E39.1DF74%rpazhyan@cisco.com> <55081C46.4000109@innovationslab.net> <CAL02cgTSvSKtiRBk3=wB75qJ+6WyW9ORkerUE26Wudxq_o+-8Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgTSvSKtiRBk3=wB75qJ+6WyW9ORkerUE26Wudxq_o+-8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aBgH1Dcq5dJ3v81b9eRpqOxtMAICI7Dts"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/0ikRkcw_DpOQDe9sScCWKe5txwA>
Cc: "draft-ietf-netext-ani-location.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-ani-location.all@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "netext-chairs@ietf.org" <netext-chairs@ietf.org>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-netext-ani-location-08: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:20:10 -0000

Richard,

On 3/19/15 12:44 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> In the spirit of cleaning things out before my departure from the IESG, I
> went ahead and cleared on this.

Cool.

> 
> Brian: I assume you will make sure the relevant change is made?

Will do!  Thanks!

Regards,
Brian

> 
> Thanks,
> --Richard
> 
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>;
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Rajesh,
>>
>> On 3/17/15 1:49 AM, Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan) wrote:
>>> Hello Richard and Brian
>>>
>>> Shall I go ahead and make the changes based on (4) and submit a new
>>> version ?
>>>
>>
>> I believe option 4 is the best approach.  If anyone in the WG disagrees,
>> they can scream now.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Brian
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Rajesh
>>>
>>> On 3/5/15, 11:49 AM, "Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan)" <rpazhyan@cisco.com>;
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the review and suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Rajesh
>>>> On 3/4/15, 6:32 PM, "Richard Barnes" <rlb@ipv.sx>; wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Richard Barnes has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>> draft-ietf-netext-ani-location-08: Discuss
>>>>>
>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please refer to
>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-ani-location/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) In Section 3.1, the "civic location" description here mentions the
>>>>> use of a location URI, but there's no corresponding Format for it.  Is
>>>>> that what you actually mean to have for XML Encoding (1)?  You're not
>>>>> going to fit much XML in 253 octets anyway.  I would suggest having
>>>>> format 0 be the RFC 4776 format, and format 1 be a URI pointing to an
>> XML
>>>>> document.
>>>>
>>>> So, yes we recognized the limitation of not being able to fit much in
>> 253
>>>> bytes.
>>>> Initially, we felt that it was still worthwhile to have that option in
>>>> case someone wanted to fit an XML based object within that.
>>>> But, I am increasingly skeptical of the value. So I am okay with the
>>>> change suggested.
>>>> However, this may be a moot point given what we decide with respect to
>>>> your point (3) below.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) It would help interoperability if you could constrain the classes
>> of
>>>>> location URI that are supported.  For example, if the mechanism in RFC
>>>>> 6753 is sufficient for your purposes, you could require that
>> geolocation
>>>>> values in format 1 use an HTTPS URI to be dereferenced using that
>>>>> mechanism.  Likewise, unless there's a known, compelling need to
>> support
>>>>> HTTP URIs, you should require HTTPS.  The fact that you have 253 format
>>>>> codes remaining means that if there are future needs for other URI
>> types,
>>>>> you can liberalize.
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) To ensure that the location information referenced by location URIs
>>>>> is protected, please comment on the assumed access control model for
>>>>> these URIs.  Can anyone with the URI dereference it?  Or are they
>>>>> required to be access-controlled?  Section 4 of RFC 6753 should
>> provide a
>>>>> helpful framework.
>>>>>
>>>>> (4) Alternatively to (2) and (3), you could just remove the option for
>> a
>>>>> XML/URI-based location altogether.  Is there a compelling use cases
>> here
>>>>> for very precise location?  Even with the 253-octet limit, the RFC 4776
>>>>> format would allow you to specify down to roughly the neighborhood
>> level
>>>>> in most cases.  For example, encoding "Washington, DC 20001, US" takes
>>>>> only 26 octets.  Even looking at some Japanese addresses, which are
>> more
>>>>> verbose, the examples I'm finding are still on the order of 70-100
>>>>> octets.
>>>>
>>>> I am quite in favor of this, because I think the DHCP based option will
>>>> meet all the deployment scenarios and the preferred
>>>> option because it eliminates the need for dereferencing.
>>>> if there is a need for it, we can always come back and add other formats
>>>> in the future (for example URL based)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> netext mailing list
>>>>> netext@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>>>
>>
>>
>