1 / 6

Update on Geopriv Policy URI Draft: Key Clarifications and Deployment Considerations

The Geopriv Policy URI draft has been updated with significant clarifications and considerations. Key revisions include the client assumption of open access as default, revised guidance on NAT implications, and advice for server operations to avoid overlapping policies among multiple clients. Deployment considerations have been refined to enhance generality and minimize overhead costs. All known issues have been addressed, and a call for a fresh review and Working Group (WG) adoption is planned for late November. The draft aims to provide clearer frameworks surrounding default policies and privacy rules.

shandi
Télécharger la présentation

Update on Geopriv Policy URI Draft: Key Clarifications and Deployment Considerations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. draft-barnes-geopriv-policy-uri

  2. -03 (err… -02) • We updated the draft (-02) in early September • … and forgot to post it • We updated it again (-03) right before the IETF • … and missed the deadline • All changes now rolled in to -02 • Clarifications around default policies • Considerations about NATs • Deployment considerations • Several minor editorial clean-ups

  3. Default Policies • Document talks a few times about using a GET to find out the server’s default policy • But HELD says the default policy is open access • Revised to clarify: • Client’s safest assumption is open access • … but server may apply a more restrictive policy • … which the client can find out with a GET • Also made policy examples more explicit with regard to privacy rules

  4. NATs • In certain circumstances, multiple clients look the same to the server • Risk that one could overwrite another’s policy • Guidance to server: Two options • Provide a fresh location URI and policy URI for each request (so multiple clients don’t overlap) • Use a restrict of the policy language defined here • MUST NOT accept PUT or DELETE requests

  5. Deployment Considerations • Previous documents (held-context) overlaid policy operations on location configuration • Revised to explain that using a separate transaction • Costs an HTTP RTT, but • Gains generality, e.g., DHCP coverage • Also suggested how servers can minimize overhead cost (implicit storage of default)

  6. Next Steps • All known issues resolved • Would like a review from a fresh reviewer • Call for WG adoption toward the end of November • Move to WGLC as soon as milestone is in place

More Related