Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-02 ???

From: Roger Marshall ^lt;RMarshall@telecomsys.com>
Date: Tue Apr 01 2008 - 14:24:32 EDT

The following summarizes the first of the three original subj:
questions, Q1,Q2,Q3:

Q1:

...about draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-01, Fr: James M. Polk
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 4:13 PM
>
> This document states clearly that it only covers LCPs and
> Dereference protocols (which seems to leave out conveyance
> protocols, BTW).
>
> In that context, I don't understand requirement C7 (in
> section 5.1), since this requirement is clearly discussing a
> clients ability to dereference location, yet it appears in
> the LCP requirements section. Why is C7 where it is? And why
> is C7 not in the next section (section 5.2) that discusses
> dereference protocols?

... Some List discussion...

My response to the list on 2/25/08...

[
-rsm, true, we need to agree on something. A couple of proposals:
a. valid until some time t, in seconds, measured from a baseline time
t0, (e.g., UTC), or b. valid until some time t, in seconds, measured
from "now", which would be a relative UTC timestamp - now must be
included as a new baseline reference.
/]

PROPOSAL:
I now think that neither of the above suggestions would work well.
Rather, the best way is a third option, c., which reuses the 'expires'
attribute approach from LoST, containing values
'dateTime','NO-EXPIRATION', and 'NO-CACHE'. This makes timing explicit,
and avoids subjectiveness due to potential transport delay, and avoids
unnecessary recalculations.

CHANGE FROM:
Current C7 requirement (-02) reads:
C7. Location URI Valid-for: A location URI validity interval, if
used, MUST include the validity time, in seconds, as an indication
of how long the client can consider a location URI to be valid.

CHANGE TO:
Proposed C7 requirement would read:
C7*. Location URI expiration: An expiration indicator MUST be included
with
the location URI to indicate the URI validity interval. This indicator
utilizes
any of the following parameter values, 'dateTime','NO-EXPIRATION', and
'NO-CACHE',
where dateTime is a timezoned XML type dateTime, in canonical
representation,
NO-EXPIRATION is indicator that the location URI never expires, and
NO-CACHE
means that it is valid now, but should not be reused, and if needed
again, it MUST
be requeried for.

Questions Q2 & Q3 will be sent as separate threads.

-roger marshall.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:19 PM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-02 ???
>
> At 07:53 AM 3/30/2008, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> >It seems that you are saying that Roger has to keep things going.
>
> All I'm saying is that there was never a post articulating
> what the consensus reached answers were to each of the 3
> questions I asked on the list. I don't believe that is
> asking a lot. Do you think this is asking too much?
>
> Each of the 3 questions had ~ 5 to 75 responses, so there
> were a lot of folks interested in the questions, and
> obviously the first response didn't answer any of the 3 Qs right away.
>
>
> >Roger, could you post a description of the outstanding issues with a
> >suggestions on how to address them?
> >
> >Ciao
> >Hannes
> >
> >James M. Polk wrote:
> > > At 12:40 PM 3/29/2008, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> > >> Given the status of HELD this document should have been
> finished a
> > >> while ago.
> > >> I am not even sure whether I have seen a WGLC for it.
> > >>
> > >> What are the next steps for it?
> > >> Why isn't it done already?
> > >
> > > weeeeelllll....
> > >
> > > There were 3 fairly substantiative questions posted
> against -01 of
> > > the ID just before the -0X deadline, and there needs to
> be time for
> > > proper review of -02 to see if this version answers at
> least these 3 questions.
> > >
> > > I think 1 has been answered
> > >
> > > I think another has not reached consensus
> > >
> > > and the last wasn't answered at all
> > >
> > > but this is memory (which may or may not be reliable)
> > >
> > >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Geopriv mailing list
> > >> Geopriv@ietf.org
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Geopriv mailing list
> >Geopriv@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and network.

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Tue, 1 Apr 2008 11:24:32 -0700

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 01 2008 - 14:24:40 EDT