Hi Alex,
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi all,
I haven't received concerns regarding the suggested discovery
approach. May I assume from the lack of feedback that the suggested
approach is reasonable?
I have seen this sort of conclusion claimed before, and it is incorrect.
Silence is not a hum in favor.
I don't have a position on this per se, but if nobody can step
forward and claim this is a reasonable solution, all we have is 'lack
of feedback', not 'consensus'.
I think I can agree.
I'm interested in all discovery mechanisms existing out there, and then
making some new... But at some point one can easily wonder whether
there aren't too many of them those discovery mechanisms, and maybe some
more reuse can be possible.
If we can re-use something existing then that's great for me as well.
The usage of DNS based discovery is not extremely new either. The
special case here is just to consideration of the fact that there are
NATs out there.
So can I turn your (Hannes) question: how much does your new discovery
protocol reuse?
Actually, it is not MY discovery mechanism. I am just a long-time
participant of the GEOPRIV working group and would like to see some
progress. In this particular case cross-area review seemed to be an
appropriate way to receive feedback "early" in the process.
Of what? Please don't argument that that and that
group believes the requirements eliminate all existing discovery
mechanisms, because I'm speechless in front of these requirements
because I haven't followed them, sorry :-)
That's a basic problem if one working group is working on a subject and
another group or community is providing input to selected parts. I have
some (bad) experience with these type of interactions and so far I
learned that soliciting feedback later than earlier is causing more
problems in the end. For some recurring problems (such as XML issues)
there are separate review groups that provide feedback in a timely
fashion. This case is a bit too special and there is no such group
available.
Then of course another question to you (Hannes) is whether we have any
IPR issues around this new method of discovery, any entanglement. If
there's IPR, on which side would one prefer to err, and so.
There were no IPRs disclosures posted to the respective GEOPRIV documents.
Since I am not the author of the specs I don't really know.
But without at least these little things one can say little, and even
less call it 'consensus', In My Humble Oppinion.
Ciao
Hannes
Alex
Joe
...
In short, the current proposal (see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery-02.txt;
ignoring Section 2 which defines the DHCP portion) essentially
does the following:
* Discover the public IP address of the end point * Perform a
reverse DNS lookup to learn the domain * Lookup the LIS for that
domain * Contact the LIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list
[email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
