RE: Location Option for DHCP

I found the DHCP location option quite clear, but also I was wondering
if there should be a field indicating that this is one arbitrary format
of passing the position (let's call it, for example, format x) so in the
future other formats (y, z) can be added to the specification without
much trouble.

The sentence would then look like this:

   DHCPPS,X,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K

Where 'X' is the name of the position format being used.

Just my 2c.

Regards,

Dante

Dante Castiglione
Focus Education Partners
dantec@abastonet.com.ar
ICQ: 49465083
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Sam Critchley [mailto:Sam.Critchley@wcom.com]
Enviado el: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 6:52 PM
Para: geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org
Asunto: Location Option for DHCP

Hi,

There was some discussion on the DHC-WG mailing-list over the last
couple of weeks about a DHCP option to allow the DHCP server to pass its
location to the DHCP client. This might be useful for enabling LBS on,
for example, an 802.11 AP where the client device's user is in a roaming
situation.

The draft is written up (by me) as a personal submission:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-critchley-dhc-location-option-
00.txt

Initial feedback seemed mainly to be based around why there would be a
requirement for such a mechanism, and why wouldn't it be satisfied by
RFC1712. Feelings (mine at least) on this last are several:

- An 802.11 AP's IP address can be dynamically assigned, and NATed to
the client, so a DNS-based system might not work well here.
- Overhead for an ISP where the DNS isn't being run on site.
- Security and lack of granularity and user-choice in choosing who gets
to have target information with a DNS-based system.

By the time of submission I hadn't come across the Geopriv requirements,
but have now read them.

The DHCP option draft does make a mention of precision (or "accuracy"),
and datum, but nothing on velocity/vector. It also makes a brief (and
possibly less relevant to DHCP) mention of a cookie-style
application-level permit warning.

I'd be interested in hearing the comments of people in the geopriv WG on
this, if you have a moment to read it.

Many thanks in advance,

Sam
Received on Sat Aug 31 15:47:45 2002