ecrit@ietf.org
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] Not-so-grand compromise on how to doendpointce

Subject: RE: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] Not-so-grand compromise on how to doendpointcentric LCPwithout giving away the store
From: "Winterbottom, James"
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:23:20 -0500
Please, this is not my business plan and never has been. I am only
trying to help move things forward. I must admit though that I don't
understand how this is any different to providing a location by value in
the same circumstance.

Your argument seems to be, you are moving super fast so the data that
you have is not right to make a call, go and get new data at call time.
It is not clear to me that there is a real difference between:

a) End-point going to the LIS getting updated data then end-point doing
LoST lookup and routing call and

b) End-point asking LIS for location, LIS doing LoST lookup and
returning PSAP URI to the end-point.

If the end-point is static, then both mechanisms are roughly equivalent
also.

I have no reason to hide location from the end-point, but the reality is
that some people want to do this. The number of lookup dips is the same
in both circumstances as best as I can tell.

Cheers
James


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, 16 April 2007 1:11 PM
> To: Winterbottom, James
> Cc: Marc Linsner; ecrit@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] Not-so-grand compromise on how to
> doendpointcentric LCPwithout giving away the store
> 
> The whole idea of LoST caching is that is both time-based (typically,
> measured in days or months) and location-based. Thus, I don't see how
> your mechanism can work. Since there's no way to predict how fast
> somebody moves, you'd have to have very short expiration times, thus
> dramatically increasing the LoST query load. In our neighborhood, the
> PSAP coverage area is roughly a few miles, so at highway speed, so
> everybody would have to expire bindings every minute or two, even for
> the vast majority of vehicles that re-visit the same area again and
> again or stay within the same area.
> 
> This seems to exactly violate the stipulated "don't make others pay
> for your business plan" requirement.
> 
> On Apr 15, 2007, at 11:04 PM, Winterbottom, James wrote:
> 
> > Sorry Henning perhaps I wasn't being to clear as I was leveraging
off
> > Brian's previous statement about changing the L7 LCP response type.
> >
> > I would therefore return an expiry time for the created context that
> > applied equally to the LoST URI. That is the LIS would choose the
> > shortest of the two and provide that as the expiry time the
end-point,
> > so when the end-point updates the context, it gets the new PSAP URI.
> > Does that make sense?
> >
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>