1 / 6

draft-polk-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-02

draft-polk-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-02. IETF70 – Vancouver James Polk. ... It’s been a hell of a week!!. ...obviously this is all in jest (NOT!!). The Requirement.

dsaylor
Download Presentation

draft-polk-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-02

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-polk-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-02 IETF70 – Vancouver James Polk

  2. ... It’s been a hell of a week!! ...obviously this is all in jest (NOT!!)

  3. The Requirement • The WG in Prague agreed to create a lower-layer-than-L7 solution to provide an endpoint with an appropriate LbyR URI for that endpoint. • This doc creates a DHCP Option to deliver an LbyR URI to a client • either dereference it’s location or • hand out to other entities to learn this client’s location (which is now the Target)

  4. The Proposal • To create a new (simple) DHCP Option for delivery of a LbyR URI 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Code XXX | Option Length | Valid-for(NEW) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Location URI | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / .... \ \ .... / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Location URI (cont'd) + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  5. What’s Changed between -01 and -02 • Added a Valid-For field, indicating (in seconds) this URI should be considered valid • A refresh will resolve this • Make it clear a DHCP may or may not be co-located with a LIS • Communication between these entities out-of-scope • BTW target rules are not communicated over DHCP • Made it clearer ‘this doc does not address what’s done outside DHCP’ • Started section about harmful URI types • Will expand this section on advice from Apps AD

  6. Next Steps • The WG hummed (in Prague) for an IETF, lower-than-L7 solution • Does this doc meet that WG request? • If so, I ask this become a WG doc to progress • Obviously will incorporate consensus reaching suggestions into doc

More Related