1 / 6

Draft Updates

Draft Updates. Relative Location draft- ietf -geopriv-relative-location HELD Dereference draft- ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol Location Measurements draft- ietf -geopriv-held-measurements HELD Identity draft- ietf -geopriv-held-identity-extensions. Relative Location. No progress to report

judson
Download Presentation

Draft Updates

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Draft Updates Relative Location draft-ietf-geopriv-relative-location HELD Dereference draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol Location Measurements draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements HELD Identity draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions

  2. Relative Location • No progress to report • Lots of minor issues • Might be blocked on resolution to civic address extension discussions (Brian) • Binary format lacks usage context (Martin)

  3. HELD Dereference • GET added after Maastrict discussions • Ready for WGLC

  4. Location Measurements • Changed wifi measurements after lots of feedback from Gabor Bajko • Tweaked SSID format to accommodate binary nature of the field • Seeking final reviews

  5. HELD Identity • DISCUSS: identifying required identity • We use qualified names to identify what a server wants (in “requiredIdentifiers”) • Do we want a registry for these? • Proposal: we shouldn’t create a registry if we don’t need a registry. • We can identify without a registry. • Does a registry aid interoperation enough to justify the cost?

  6. HELD Identity • DISCUSS: TCP or UDP Port Number • There are transport protocols other than TCP and UCP, i.e., SCTP and DCCP. • […] Is there really a use case for identifying devices based on what is basically a socket ID? • If yes, then you need to […] support SCTP and DCCP […]

More Related