Re: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums
Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general,gmane.ietf.geopriv |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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 agree but most of the GEOPRIV working group members do. The main issue was which solution proposal to pick as a baseline for future work.) 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 that matter, why couldn't a DHCP server have > real-time triangulation data, if it exists at all? > I should have written "RFC 3825 is not a great choice in a cellular environment". It is fine for a WLAN hotspot and an enterprise environment. where it also competes with other layer 2 location configuration mechanisms and LLDP-MED. > Do you mean more complex than can be expressed by RFC 4776 and RFC > 3825 together? > RFC 3825 describes a point. Civic address formats (RFC 4776) have good applicability in fixed and some selected wireless environments (WLAN hotspot). They haven't been considered in the cellular space. Location determination techniques produce other shape types. Please look at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-06.txt > Brian Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf