PowerPoint Presentation - Title Subtitle

1

GEOPRIV IETF-71 Meeting Philadelphia, March 2008
HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) draft-ietf-g
eopriv-http-location-delivery-05.txt Editor
Mary Barnes (mary.barnes_at_nortel.com)
Contributors James Winterbottom
(james.winterbottom_at_andrew.com)
Martin Thomson (martin.thomson_at_andrew.com)
Barbara Stark
(barbara.stark_at_bellsouth.com)
2
Contents

• Status
• Changes since last version (s)
• Issues
• Way Forward
• Comments/Questions

3
Status

• 2 revisions since IETF-70
• -04 completed WGLC on 29 January 2008.
• WGLC on -05 ends on 21 March 2008.

4
HELD version -04 changes

• Changes primarily based on IETF-69 Discussion
  points
• Terminology
• clarified that "attribute" and "element" are used
  in the strict XML sense and "parameter" is used
  as a general protocol term
• Replaced term "HTTP delivery" with "HTTP
  transport". Still have two terms "HTTP
  transport" and "HTTP binding", but those are
  consistent with general uses of HTTP.
• Editorial changes and clarifications (per mailing
  list feedback from Roger Marshall and Eric
  Arolick)
• Changed normative language for describing
  expected and recommended LIS behaviors to be
  non-normative recommendations in cases where the
  protocol parameters were not the target of the
  discussion (e.g., we can't prescribe to the LIS
  how it determines location or what it defines to
  be an "accurate" location)
• Clarified responseTime attribute (section 6.1).
  Changed type from "decimal" to "nonNegativeInteger
  " in XML schema (section 7)
• Updated Table 1
• Include only top-level parameters.
• fixed some errors in that table (i.e., code for
  locationResponse)
• added PIDF-LO to the table. Related note Added
  a detailed section describing PIDF-LO (section
  6.6), moving some of the normative text in the
  Protocol Overview to this section.
• HELD URI Added schema, description and IANA
  schema registration
• Added IANA registry for error codes.

5
HELD version -05 changes

• Replaced the security section based on a proposal
  from Richard Barnes, thus no need to reference
  the location security document.
• Error codes
• Fixed error codes in schema to allow
  extensibility.
• Changed the IANA registration to be
  "specification required".
• Cleaned up the HELD URI description
• Put the definition in a separate section.
• Clarified the applicability to also include being
  a result of the discovery process
• Fixed examples.

6
HELD version -05 changes

• Updated the LocationURI section
• Per HELD-04 Issue 3 locationURI SHOULD NOT
  contain any information that could be used to
  identify the Device or Target (changed MUST to
  SHOULD)
• Include the reference to the new HELDURI
  section.
• Corrected top level parm in the locationResponse
  to be locationUriSet, which contains any number
  of locationURI elements and the "expires"
  parameter
• Table 1 updated
• Added a new section for the LocationURISet
• Clarified that "expires" applies to
  "locationURISet" and not per "locationURI".
• Editorial nits
• by-value -gt by value, by-reference -gt by
  reference, etc.

7
HELD Editorial nits

• Terminology inconsistencies (to dash or not)
• by-reference versus by reference/ by-value
  versus by value
• SIP location document and Location By Reference
  requirements documents use Location-by-value
  (LbyV) and Location-by-reference (LbyR)
• Location Configuration Protocol Requirements doc
  uses location by Value (LbyV) and location by
  Reference (LbyR)
• Proposal 2 IF we feel strongly that it should
  be the same in all documents, send a note and let
  the RFC Editor ensure there is consistency.
• Response Time description
• Clarify that there is either a time or a
  purpose (i.e., emergencyRouting or
  emergencyDispatch) in the responseTime
  attribute

8
HELD Issues/discussion

• HELD URI
• Definition of HELD URI remains in this document.
  Concern raised that more detail on the
  deferencing use of the HELD URI should be added.
• Includes a reference to location-dereference
  document, as a user of the HELDURI, per URI
  schema registration guidelines (RFC 4395).
• Proposal Since the reference is informational,
  should not cause problems with progression of
  this document and the details on the
  dereferencing use of the HELD URI belongs in the
  location dereference document.
• VPN Device Serving as a LIS
• Is the intent for the VPN device serving as a LIS
  to be able to provide LI via HELD to other
  entities that provide location?
• If so, need the sentence to ensure that LI is NOT
  converted into a form that conveys less
  information.
• Or, is the intent to highlight that protocols
  other than HELD can be used when a VPN device
  serves as a LIS?
• If so, propose that text discussing the use of
  DHCP and LLDP-MED be removed altogether.

9
Way Forward HELD

• Update document
• Editorial changes
• Issue resolution per discussion.
• Any other comments received by 21 March.
• Doc (-06) should be ready for progressing for
  publication