ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Gen-ART LC/Tekechat Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-10

2010-03-21 20:04:47

On Mar 21, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:

Ben wrote:
There's a few ways to handle that:

1) Treat rate-control as an informative reference, and say you're doing 
something mostly like rate control, but not quite identical. That would 
require quite a bit more normative language to describe what you're actually 
doing.

2) Make this draft update rate-control to allow for empty bodies when you 
don't have location info yet. Put some tightly constrained language around 
it. so that this doesn't become a _general_ udpate.

3) Since rate-control has, to my knowledge, not been pubreq'd yet, try to 
get the authors to modify the language to allow for empty bodies for this 
use case.

I personally think 3 is the best path forward, as I think the empty notify 
is generally useful for rate-control, and implementor are likely to do it 
anyway.

I was not under the impression from reading rate-control that that document 
was modifying 3265 to prevent notifiers from sending an empty notify.  But, 
your suggestion is a reasonable one.  Reading the rate-control text you 
quoted earlier in the thread could lead to the impression that this is the 
case.  I've added the rate control authors to the thread.


I don't think it modifies 3265 in general, but it does seem to normatively 
prevent empty NOTIFY requests as a result of a max-interval expiration.

--Martin

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf