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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf