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

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
> 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)" <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the review and suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Rajesh
>>>> On 3/4/15, 6:32 PM, "Richard Barnes" <[e-mail]> 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
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>>>
>>
>>
>