Subject: [Geopriv] GEOPRIV L7 LCP: Additional Requirements

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:56:35 +0200

Hi all,

after I indicated that I am working on the draft update of the L7 LCP 
requirements document Guy sent me a mail asking whether I considered the 
following issues. He pointed me to a good summary (see 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg03118.html). I 
have to admit that I missed this mail. Here is a copy-and-paste of the 
requirements list:

Please find my comments inline:

New requirement proposals:

- Consider requirements from NENA 08-752
  Requested by: B.Stark
  Supported by: E.Arolik, M.Dawson, O.Lendl, J.Winterbottom, G.Caron
  Challenged by: H.Tschofenig
  STATUS: Under discussion however only 1 real assessment attempt thus far
  REF: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg02963.html

[Hannes] I would like to know more exactly what I should add.
I went through the document and posted a few responses to the list.
Feedback appreciated.

- Setting a Response Time in the Location Request (NENA req. DA12)
  Requested by: B.Stark, J.Grenier
  Supported by: J.Winterbottom, M.Thompson, G.Caron
  Challenged by: B.Rosen
  STATUS: Open. Contention on the fact that it may be orthogonal to all LCPs
  REF: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg02989.html

[Hannes] My understanding was that this would affect the protocol used 
for dereferencing rather than the LCP protocol as such. Hence, I 
suggested (also with the IETF#68 presentation) that this requirement is 
going to be added to Roger's document

- Add LIS-LIS communications
  Requested by: O.Lendl, B.Stark, E.Arlolik
  Supported by: M.Dawson, J.Winterbottom, G.Caron, J.Grenier
  Challenged by: None (IMO, only clarifications were sought)
  STATUS: Resolved but may benefit from specific wording in L7-LCP PS&R
  REF: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg02956.html

[Hannes] I thought that the conclusion at IETF#68 that this aspect 
should be covered in a separate draft. Right?

- Requesting LO On-Behalf-Of an endpoint
  Requested by: B.Stark
  Supported by: E.Arolik, J.Winterbottom, M.Dawson, J.Grenier, G.Caron
  Challenged by: B.Rosen, H. Schulzrinne, A.Newton
  STATUS: Closed from an L7-LCP perspective
  REF: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg02936.html

[Hannes] Same as previous aspect --> Covered in the same document as the 
LIS-LIS communication.

- Add endpoint Location Assertion function as a requirement
  Requested by: J.Winterbottom
  Supported by: M.Dawson, G.Caron
  Challenged by: A.Newton
  STATUS: Open (dormant on the list)
  REF: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg02903.html

[Hannes] We didn't reached a conclusion on this issue so far. I argued 
that this functionality is not needed.

- Setting preferred loc type (civic/geo) in Location Request
  Requested by: J.Grenier
  Supported by: G.Caron
  Challenged by: None
  STATUS: Open (dormant on the list)
  REF: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg02818.html

[Hannes] Is this a requirement for the dereferencing protocol or also 
for the protocol run between the Target and the Location Configuration 
Server (LCP)?

Previously I got the impression that we assumed that a certain 
deployment just uses its specific version of location information and 
does not attempt  to perform conversion. For example, in a DSL 
environment you might just get civic location information back. I assume 
that in most enterprise and WLAN environments that might also be the 
case (although some form of geodetic location information might be 
reasonable). For a cellular environment I doubt that you will get a 
civic address back.

- Add O&M requirements
  Requested by: D.Romascanu
  Supported by: None so far
  Challenged by: None so far
  STATUS: Open (dormant on the list)
  REF: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg02829.html

I will ask Dan what he has in mind. I do not have a good text proposal 
in front of me.

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv