@ietf.org
Objet : RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums
On most devices of interest, this is a non issue; they are small embedded
devices, like phones.
For other situations, for example a sip softclient running on a laptop, we
will specify an api on the O/S the application
PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums
Brian,
we will specify an api on the O/S the application is running
Who is we, geopriv?
Guy Caron
-Message d'origine-
De : Brian Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : 25 avril 2007
The reason that DHCP is appropriate for information about the
location of the host is that the scope of DHCP administration usually
does match the local network to which the host is attached. Location
is local information.
John
On Apr 20, 2007, at 3:38 PM, David W. Hankins wrote:
The
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 10:59 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: Brian Rosen; 'GEOPRIV WG'; Dawson, Martin; ietf@ietf.org; 'Allison
Mankin'; 'John Schnizlein'
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group
Hums
On 2007-04-20 09:21, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
DHCP
programs from DHCP never caught on.
-Original Message-
From: John Schnizlein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 6:41 PM
To: David W. Hankins
Cc: GEOPRIV WG; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68
Working Group Hums
The reason
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 06:50:28AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
But how does my application access it?
The proper way from my point of view would be to read from your
system's option cache, so whatever DHCP the system does filters
down to applications.
DHCP is not something that an
of which DHCP is one.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:50 AM
To: John Schnizlein; David W. Hankins
Cc: GEOPRIV WG; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums
Brian,
we will specify an api
: Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:39 PM
To: James M. Polk; Dawson, Martin; John Schnizlein; Andrew Newton
Cc: GEOPRIV WG; ietf@ietf.org; Allison Mankin
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums
DHCP is a layer 3 technology that talks directly to layer 2.
This is entirely
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group
Hums
At 04:20 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson, Martin wrote:
DHCP is not adequate because it doesn't meet multiple sets of
requirements as documented multiple times ...
bologna
documented multiple times means in individual submissions
] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group
Hums
Martin
Exactly what products support HELD right now?
If you want location verification and location signing - are these
deployed today?
Doesn't all these mean something has to be changed or upgraded?
Broadband providers in the US have given away
-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 10:59 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: Brian Rosen; 'GEOPRIV WG'; Dawson, Martin; ietf@ietf.org; 'Allison
Mankin'; 'John Schnizlein'
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group
Hums
On 2007-04
Hi Brian,
I quickly respond to your question but I do not plan to restart the last
2 years of GEOPRIV discussions.
(I personally got the impression that the work on a GEOPRIV Layer 7 LCP
solution was not really subject for discussion anymore. I acknowledge
the fact that some folks still don't
of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-04-20 09:21, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
DHCP is not a great choice in a mobile environment and also not when
it comes to more complex location representations.
Why can't a mobile system have a locally valid DHCP record
.
Mike
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:39 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: 'GEOPRIV WG'; 'Dawson,Martin'; ietf@ietf.org; 'Allison Mankin'; 'John
Schnizlein'
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:14 AM
To: Brian Rosen
Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'GEOPRIV WG'; 'Dawson,Martin'; ietf@ietf.org;
'Allison Mankin'; 'John Schnizlein'
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums
Brian Rosen wrote:
The cable systems use the MAC
On 2007-04-20 09:21, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
DHCP is not a great choice in a mobile environment and also not when it
comes to more complex location representations.
Why can't a mobile system have a locally valid DHCP record (+/- the length
of a wireless link)? For that matter, why couldn't a
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-04-20 09:21, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
DHCP is not a great choice in a mobile environment and also not when
it comes to more complex location representations.
Why can't a mobile system have a locally valid DHCP record (+/- the
length
of a wireless link)? For
From: David W. Hankins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 03:38:40PM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
DHCP is a layer 3 technology that talks directly to layer 2.
DHCP is a technology that dynamically configures hosts.
That's not the point, the point here is that
Huh? DHCP is carried in UDP and IP. There is a little funkiness in the
DHCPv4 transport, which we wouldn't have need if IPv4 link-local addresses
had been defined when RFC 2131 was published. DHCPv6 uses link-local
addresses and garden-variety IPv6.
- Ralph
On 4/20/07 1:48 PM, Hallam-Baker,
Please consult RFC 2131:
DHCP uses UDP as its transport protocol. DHCP messages from a client
to a server are sent to the 'DHCP server' port (67), and DHCP
messages from a server to a client are sent to the 'DHCP client'
port
(68). A server with multiple network address (e.g., a
. Hankins; ietf@ietf.org
Cc: GEOPRIV WG
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68
Working Group Hums
Huh? DHCP is carried in UDP and IP. There is a little
funkiness in the
DHCPv4 transport, which we wouldn't have need if IPv4
link-local addresses had been defined when RFC
.
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:57 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; David W. Hankins; ietf@ietf.org
Cc: GEOPRIV WG
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68
Working Group Hums
Huh? DHCP is carried in UDP
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 02:02:18PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
Set up the relay agent in your router to point at my DHCP server.
There are also DHCPINFORM (v4) and Information-Request (v6) messages
which can transit the public Internet. I think however, v4 fails
with NAT.
They are also not
I'm sorry this reply is late. I suspect you were stuck in ISC's
greylisters.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:48:14AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
That's not the point, the point here is that DHCP is not an Internet
protocol. It is an IETF protocol but not an Internet protocol. It does
not
At 04:20 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson, Martin wrote:
DHCP is not adequate because it doesn't meet multiple sets of
requirements as documented multiple times ...
bologna
documented multiple times means in individual submissions
of which, zero facts were presented to substantiate
If DHCP were so
; ietf@ietf.org; Allison Mankin
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68
Working Group Hums
At 04:20 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson, Martin wrote:
DHCP is not adequate because it doesn't meet multiple sets of
requirements as documented multiple times ...
bologna
documented
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 03:38:40PM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
DHCP is a layer 3 technology that talks directly to layer 2.
DHCP is a technology that dynamically configures hosts.
If a host has a configuration knob that might reasonably and
properly be set by the systems administrator
, 2007 5:31 PM
To: Dawson, Martin; John Schnizlein; Andrew Newton
Cc: GEOPRIV WG; ietf@ietf.org; Allison Mankin
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68
Working Group Hums
At 04:20 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson, Martin wrote:
DHCP is not adequate because it doesn't meet multiple
29 matches
Mail list logo
