Upload
judson
View
37
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Draft UpdatesRelative Location
draft-ietf-geopriv-relative-locationHELD Dereference
draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocolLocation Measurements
draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurementsHELD Identity
draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions
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)
HELD Dereference
• GET added after Maastrict discussions• Ready for WGLC
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
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?
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 […]