Re: [Geopriv] What to do about DHCP and the ever changing PIDF as well as HELD features

From: James M. Polk ^lt;jmpolk@cisco.com>
Date: Wed Jul 16 2008 - 02:24:31 EDT

Thank you Barbara

The DHCP LbyR ID was "publication requested" a month ago (right after
the interim) - , so it shouldn't be lagging behind phoneBCP, it might
even be ahead of it.

James

At 05:38 PM 7/15/2008, Stark, Barbara wrote:
>In my opinion, putting the URI capability in DHCP allows for a lot of
>future changes to be indirectly supported. That is, the PIDF-LO can be
>extended, and other stuff (signing, etc.) supported, without further
>options or modification of options in DHCP.
>
>I think we ought to proceed with the URI in DHCP. Other proposals to
>synch DHCP with future capabilities can be proposed and scrutinized with
>the knowledge that it doesn't have to do all the same things. But let's
>do this one. Okay?
>
>I don't think we need to include it in phonebcp at this time, so it's
>not holding anything up. It's pretty easy, so it won't be lots of
>effort.
>Barbara
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
>Behalf Of Brian Rosen
>Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:04 PM
>To: 'James M. Polk'; Rosen, Brian; 'Hannes Tschofenig'; 'Romascanu, Dan
>(Dan)'
>Cc: geopriv@ietf.org; 'John Schnizlein'
>Subject: Re: [Geopriv] What to do about DHCP and the ever changing
>PIDFaswell as HELD features
>
>I think all of this answer is why I raised the question in the first
>place.
>
>You can use these answers for each and every feature in any LCP.
>
>If that's what we want to do, then we can justify every proposed feature
>in
>HELD to be incorporated in DHCP one way or another.
>
>Is that what we want to do?
>
>Brian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
>Behalf
> > Of James M. Polk
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 5:20 PM
> > To: Rosen, Brian; Hannes Tschofenig; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Cc: geopriv@ietf.org; John Schnizlein
> > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] What to do about DHCP and the ever changing
>PIDF
> > aswell as HELD features
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > in-line
> >
> > At 03:04 PM 7/15/2008, Rosen, Brian wrote:
> > >I think this is unfair.
> > >
> > >The original HELD proposal had nearly all of the capability now
>proposed
> > >in the sum of the drafts.
> >
> > and it didn't go anywhere, for many many meetings it went nowhere
> >
> > >The work group desired to start with the basic LCP and go from
> > >there, which the authors did.
> >
> > this was based on 2 reasons:
> >
> > #1 - DT submitted a PDF with the business decision that it was not
> > going to let anyone know their location without the ability to charge
> > for it, and then only give that information out for their own
> > subscribers, to be inserted by some server, and not the endpoint.
> >
> > #2 - because Barbara Stark had the charter to persuade the WG that
> > BellSouth wouldn't be upgrading any of their DSL equipment and yet
> > still wanted the capability of this new information.
> >
> > What hasn't been talked about is that the DSL Forum, now called the
> > Broadband Forum adopted DHCP as the protocol of choice in their specs.
> >
> > >They are now
> > >bringing back individual features from the original concept, and the
> > >work group is considering each feature. Nothing wrong with that.
> > >
> > >I think it's questionable if DHCP should be giving out an LbyR. If a
> > >LIS is getting into the LbyR business, perhaps it ought to be
>thinking
> > >about HELD.
> >
> > what if a customer runs DHCP now and doesn't want to run another
>protocol?
> >
> > DHCP has been around for quite a while now. Why shouldn't it be
> > allowed to be extended to provide a URI?
> >
> > Why should vendors and customers require a new protocol just to get a
>URI?
> >
> > Isn't it simpler just to extend an existing protocol, than to create
> > and force the implementation and knowledge of a new one? To me, the
> > latter sounds crazy.
> >
> > >My question is: what would DHCP LbyR get you that HELD LbyR would
>not?
> >
> > a simpler implementation for one. Fewer protocols to configure for
> > another. How about less to manage, for a third.
> >
> > >Why would an implementer choose DHCP when LbyR was used?
> >
> > I don't know - because they probably already run DHCP?
> >
> > Question for you: Why are you wanting to mandate a new protocol on an
> > implementer just to carry a locationURI, when DHCP can so easily do
> > this if extended?
> >
> >
> > >I think we have a reasonable answer for when DHCP is a reasonable LCP
> > >when civic is given. I think the argument is slightly less strong,
>but
> > >at least reasonable when geos are given. I'm having trouble with
>DHCP
> > >and lbyr.
> > >
> > >Why?
> >
> > does your laptop run HELD today?
> >
> > It runs DHCP already. A simple service pack (if you run windows -
> > which 95% of the planet runs also) could add this Option.
> >
> > The same issues exist for a DHCP server on the backend when getting a
> > wired Ethernet jack or AP its location. There will be some
> > communication as to which jack is being asked for, and which location
> > record is associated with port or AP, for example.
> >
> > Couple the capability of a layer 2.5 delivery protocol with that of a
> > layer 2 discovery/determination method (802.11 triangulation - which
> > has existed for some time now), and all that's necessary is for the
> > Location Server of the Access network to populate the location
> > records with the changing location of the target, identified by the
> > locationURI that's given to the DHCP client by its DHCP server - and
> > the client (which is a target (and maybe an LG), and what more is
>needed?
> >
> > DHCP is a data dump delivery system. HELD is more complex.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:42 PM
> > > > To: Hannes Tschofenig; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > > > Cc: geopriv@ietf.org; Rosen, Brian; John Schnizlein
> > > > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] What to do about DHCP and the ever changing
> > >PIDF
> > > > aswell as HELD features
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps all this excitement about whether or not DHCP gets into an
> > > > arms race with HELD needs to be looked at from the opposite point
>of
> > > > view, which is one no one has mentioned to date. Perhaps the
> > > > argument that DHCP remains very simple (supply geo, civic and lbyr
> > > > and that's it) should be the model for all LCPs, one HELD should
>be
> > > > limited to as well. Which LCP is creating the arms race?
> > > >
> > > > An observation that can be seen by a blind man is that HELD is
>taking
> > > > on an awful lot of capabilities and features and mechanisms and no
> > > > one defines HELD the same way, because there are so many optional
> > > > capabilities being proposed vs accepted into the WG.
> > > >
> > > > DHCP should never be used to obtain GPS assistance data; but to
> > > > obtain a single, simple locationURI -- I'm amazed that's getting
>any
> > > > resistance, even as a passing comment.
> > > >
> > > > At 12:05 PM 7/15/2008, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> > > > >John,
> > > > >
> > > > >my pointer to deployment relates to Brian's mail entitled as:
>"What
> > > > >to do about DHCP and the ever changing PIDF aswell as HELD
>features"
> > > > >
> > > > >There are problably a few additional features for DHCP to arrive
>but
> > > > >I have some doubts that there are too many of them.
> > > > >For example, I doubt that it makes sense to obtain GPS assistance
> > > > >data via DHCP.
> > > > >
> > > > >On the additional issue you raised: I know that the format is
>also
> > > > >used by LLDP-MED but the IEEE in the future with their work on
>the
> > > > >LLDP-MED revision will need to make an assessment what feature to
> > > > >add. Additionally, I don't know about the deployment of LLDP-MED
> > > > >location mechanisms either. Maybe you know more.
> > > > >
> > > > >Ciao
> > > > >Hannes
> > > > >
> > > > >Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > > > >>Yes, with the observation that LLDP-MED is not an IEEE 802.1
> > >standard,
> > > > >>but rather a TIA 41.4 standard, also known as ANSI-TIA 1057.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Dan
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>-----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
>[mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org]
> > > > >>>On Behalf Of John Schnizlein
> > > > >>>Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:59 PM
> > > > >>>To: Hannes Tschofenig
> > > > >>>Cc: geopriv@ietf.org; Rosen, Brian
> > > > >>>Subject: Re: [Geopriv] What to do about DHCP and the ever
>changing
> > > > >>>PIDF aswell as HELD features
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Hannes,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Do you really not know that the IEEE 802.1 Committee has
>adopted
> > > > >>>the format from RFC 3825 in their definition of LLDP-MED?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>The broad fact that many specifications of the IETF are never
> > > > >>>deployed seems a poor reason to question the utility of the
>DHCP
> > > > >>>options for location configuration information.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>John
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>On 2008Jul15, at 11:38 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>Maybe we could ask these guys whether they are already
> > > > >>>happy with the
> > > > >>>>functionality being available since years or what other
> > > > >>>functionality
> > > > >>>>they need.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>I would like to avoid ending up like some other IETF groups
>where
> > > > >>>>researchers come up with ideas on what customers could
> > > > >>>eventually find
> > > > >>>>useful and then there is the big surprise many, many years
> > > > >>>later that
> > > > >>>>they actually want something different.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Ciao
> > > > >>>>Hannes
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Rosen, Brian wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>There is no deployment of anything yet, but I do
> > > > >>>understand there are
> > > > >>>>>plans for some DHCP deployment in some cable systems and
> > > > >>>enterprises.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>You will have to wait another year, or maybe more, to use
> > > > >>>deployment
> > > > >>>>>as a guide.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>Brian
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]
> > > > >>>>>>...
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>I am actually more concerned about the lack of deployment of
> > > > >>>>>>the DHCP based mechanisms given that they have been finished
> > > > >>>>>>already some time ago.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>Wouldn't it be interesting to know what is deployed and why
> > > > >>>>>>some stuff isn't deployed? To some extend that relates to
>the
> > > > >>>discussion
> > > > >>>>>>around fixing DHCP-geo.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>_______________________________________________
> > > > >>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
Received on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:24:31 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 16 2008 - 02:24:43 EDT