Subject: [Ecrit] LoST Document getting close to WGLC

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:11:15 +0100

Hi all,

the LoST draft is getting close to start a WGLC. We would like to get 
some feedback whether the current version meets the expectation of the 
working group.
The draft authors have worked hard to incorporate many review comments.

Here is the document:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-03.txt

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:48:08 -0500

Could someone say why LoST doesn't allow for provision of location 
information by reference?  Not trying to imply that it should, just curious.

Thanks,
--Richard

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:56:30 -0500

In the end, the LoST servers have to resolve it, since you can't map  
references. Thus, this simply delays the resolution and adds  
additional error conditions. Plus, multiple forest guide and  
authoritative LoST servers typically have to resolve a single query  
(e.g., country -> state -> county -> city), so you'd be going across  
the wide area network to whatever access network three or four times,  
each time worrying that there's some kind of access problem. This  
just increases the delay, since you'd suffer TCP (and possibly TLS)  
setup delay for each one of these. In other words, the likely  
consequence of doing this is far more work for the LoST servers,  
resulting in much lower query capacity, and higher delay for the  
querier.

And yes, this has been discussed before, several times, so you can  
probably find additional discussion in the archives.

Henning

On Jan 19, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:

>> the LoST draft is getting close to start a WGLC. We would like to  
>> get some feedback whether the current version meets the  
>> expectation of the working group.

---

From: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:11:57 -0500

Richard,
 
> Could someone say why LoST doesn't allow for provision of 
> location information by reference?  Not trying to imply that 
> it should, just curious.

In the case of using a LbyR that points to the AOR presence service, how
would one build the rules that authorize the de-reference?

-Marc-