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

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Tue, 17 March 2015 12:21 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 10AD61A039D; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 05:21:38 -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 ZOatKclaY1HK; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 05:21:36 -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 17C6C1A039A; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 05:21:36 -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 E4A9C88146; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 05:21:35 -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 424DA13682AD; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 05:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55081C46.4000109@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:21:26 -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: "Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan)" <rpazhyan@cisco.com>, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150305023225.22812.66108.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D11DECAB.1D878%rpazhyan@cisco.com> <D12D0E39.1DF74%rpazhyan@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D12D0E39.1DF74%rpazhyan@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jk0ibvrS4VGNmDvIGOvhflmcxwjlFiRhH"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/Poud-C0o1dWYa9WAl7Wu6HKBytU>
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>, "netext-chairs@ietf.org" <netext-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netext-ani-location.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-ani-location.all@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: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:21:38 -0000

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
>>