Subject: Re: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-07.txt

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:25:14 -0500

There was only one on-list response to this working group last call -  
it was positive.

Hannes or Henning - did you receive any offline comments?

Folks - _please_ reply that you've read this and think its ready to go  
(if that's your opinion). The artifact in the archives is important!

Richard and I are going to start processing this for publication  
request, but won't pull the trigger until we see some evidence in the  
archive that the group is ready for us to do so.

RjS

On Apr 30, 2008, at 4:26 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:

> This is a GEOPRIV WG Last Call for comments on
>  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-07.txt
>
> Please send your comments to the editors and/or list by May 16.
>
> If you believe this document is ready to go as is, please send a  
> note to the list saying so.
>
> If we end up with a lot of discussion on the two documents currently  
> in IETF Last Call, we will extend
> the last call deadline for this draft.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

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

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:38:51 +0300

I did not receive further responses.

Given that the document received already a huge amount of discussion I 
am quite pleased to hear that we are getting closer to completion.

Ciao
Hannes

Robert Sparks wrote:
>> If you believe this document is ready to go as is, please send a note 
>> to the list saying so.
>>
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: "Stark, Barbara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 15:03:06 -0400

I had to go back and look at the comments I sent February 19, 2007. I
see some of them weren't addressed, so I'm resending just those.
Barbara
 
Substantive Comments
---------------------------------------
3.2 Moving Network
Recommend replacing the entire text of 3.2 with the following:
<begin text>
One example of a moving network is a WiMAX fixed wireless scenario. This
also applies to "pre-WiMAX" and "WiMAX-like" fixed wireless networks. In
implementations intended to provide broadband service to a home or other
stationary location, the customer-side antenna / NTE tends to be rather
small and portable. The LAN-side output of this device is an Ethernet
jack, which can be used to feed a PC or a router. The PC or router then
uses DHCP or PPPoE to connect to the access network, the same as for
wired access networks. Access providers who deploy this technology may
use the same core network (including network elements that terminate
PPPoE and provide IP addresses) for DSL, fiber to the premises (FTTP),
and fixed wireless customers.

Given that the customer antenna is portable and can be battery-powered,
it is possible for a user to connect a laptop to it and move within the
coverage area of a single base antenna. This coverage area can be many
square kilometers in size. In this case, the laptop (and any SIP client
running on it) would be completely unaware of their mobility. Only the
user and the network are aware of the laptop's mobility.

Further examples of moving networks (where end devices may not be aware
that they are moving) can be found in busses, trains, and airplanes.

Figure 2 shows an example topology for a moving network.
<end text>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It might be nice to include the NENA Location TID referenced as an 
informative reference. It did help to provide some of the initial
thinking,
and this is being done partially to help meet those requirements.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Purely editorial and other not-very-substantive comments

3.1, First sentence and Figure 1 title
Since we genericized this section and the figure (so they aren't
specific to DSL), I would prefer if the first sentence read "The
following figure shows a fixed-wired access network scenario ..."
The Figure 1 title would become "Fixed-wired Scenario".

3.1, p. 7
Recommend rewording paragraph that begins "Current Customer Premises
Network..." to "Current Customer Premises Network (CPN) deployments
generally fall into one of the following classifications:"

3.1, p.7, item 1. 
Recommend changing "CPE - Single PC" to "Single PC"

4. Last paragraph, including list items
Recommend rewording:
The LIS discovery procedure raises deployment and security issues. The
access network needs to be designed to prevent man-in-the-middle
adversaries from presenting themselves as a LIS to end hosts. When an
end host discovers a LIS, it needs to ensure (and be able to ensure)
that the discovered entity is indeed an authorized LIS.

5., p14, Host Identifier
change "an mapping" to "a mapping"

p 15, IP Address, 2nd paragraph
change "Premise" to "Premises"

6.
Requirement L7-4
Change "The L3 provider operates the LIS and needs to obtain..." to "The
L3 provider operates the LIS that the Target queries. It, in turn, needs
to obtain ..."

Requirement L7-5
Change "an DSL" to "a DSL"

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 11:25 AM
To: Robert Sparks
Cc: GEOPRIV
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-07.txt

There was only one on-list response to this working group last call - it
was positive. 

RjS

	

	If we end up with a lot of discussion on the two documents
currently in IETF Last Call, we will extend
	the last call deadline for this draft.

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA623

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:53:18 +0300

Hi Barbara,

thanks for pointing to these comments again. I indeed missed these set 
of comments.

> see some of them weren't addressed, so I'm resending just those.

OK.

OK

OK

> generally fall into one of the following classifications:"
OK

> Recommend changing "CPE - Single PC" to "Single PC"
OK

> that the discovered entity is indeed an authorized LIS.
OK

> change "Premise" to "Premises"
OK

> L3 provider operates the LIS that the Target queries. It, in turn, needs
OK
> Change "an DSL" to "a DSL"
OK

Ciao
Hannes

> *From:* [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On 
> Behalf Of *Robert Sparks
> *Sent:* Friday, June 06, 2008 11:25 AM
> *To:* Robert Sparks
> *Cc:* GEOPRIV
> *Subject:* Re: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-07.txt
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity 
> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, 
> and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination 
> or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this 
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient 
> is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the 
> sender and delete the material from all computers. GA623
>